- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:31:05 +0000
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-validator@w3.org, feedvalidator users <feedvalidator-users@lists.sourceforge.net>, www-archive@w3.org
Why not integrate into the user agent**? http://www.yergler.net/projects/mozcc/ try http://www.peepo.co.uk when using the creative commons license RDF info (PD) in this case. admittedly this isn't a validator, but does provide a friendly graphic for RDF info.... regards Jonathan Chetwynd Accessible Solutions http://www.eas-i.co.uk **or how about a graphic that was checked every 24 hours? ie this page was valid in the last 24 hours, obviously the author could check more frequently when updating :-) On 28 Jan 2006, at 20:30, Danny Ayers wrote: On 1/28/06, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Danny Ayers wrote: >> A little ps. on this thread - >> >> Sean B. Palmer has put together a script very much along the lines >> described earlier - "Validate With Logos", for (X)HTML, using the W3C >> Validator. >> >> http://inamidst.com/proj/valid/ >> >> I'm hoping he can be encouraged to add hooks for the Feed Validator >> and RDF Validator too ;-) > > It would be very easy to add code that performs this function to the > Feed Validator itself. > > What would be considerably harder is convincing people to install the > feedvalidator on their own machines. > > Having a cgi-script run on my machine every time somebody fetches a > staticly-served page on your machine, multiplied by the number of > people > who also see a value in this... well, that simply is a non-starter. Yep, Sean mentioned the same issue (on IRC). Having just one or two centralised services probably would be unfeasible. But as noted earlier, there's no reason to run such a script for every page access - once every update would still mean 100% coverage. Still, if the code (and dependencies) were packaged in a convenient form (like a .deb), then perhaps a useful number of people might install the validation tools on their own machines (where useful > 0). Such installs need not be individual - it's not inconceivable that the same install could be shared across a corporate ___domain, or made available to web host service providers, alongside their existing web admin tools. Even with validator bookmarks in place in my browser it takes time to check, and demands a lot more attention than glancing at a smiley. The change might only lower the bar to validation a teeny bit, but on web scale that may still make a significant difference. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Sunday, 29 January 2006 11:31:13 UTC