Madan U Sreenivasan wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 19:52:11 +0530, Max Bowsher <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>> Karl Fogel wrote:
>>>>> I would like to convert it to a single HTML file, www/design.html. I
>>>>> believe that almost everyone reads it as HTML anyway, and that it
>>>>> be both more maintainable and more easily referable-into as a
>>>>> single HTML
>>>>> file. In fact, I already have converted it, and www/design.html is
>>>>> sitting in my working copy. (I had content changes to make, and felt
>>>>> impeded by the current format and compilation process, so I pushed
>>>>> and did the conversion first.)
>>>> And I'd go a step further and say that the document is required to
>>>> be "XHTML
>>>> 1.0 Strict", with no how-it-looks type markup outside of CSS (so, use
>>>> <strong> and <em>, instead of <b> and <i> and <u> ...).
>>> Hear hear! And install a pre-commit hook on svn.collab.net that checks
>>> it against http://validator.w3.org/.
>> No need - I validate the complete contents of our www/ directory on a
>> regular basis. See www/validate.sh in our tree, for quick automated
>> validation, locally, without having to contact an external host.
> I think Brane was suggesting the downloading the validator source and
> using it... The source is available from http://validator.w3.org/source/
> under the w3c software licence (uh?)
> You script looks cool too. But why do you want to write/maintain
> something similar to whats available from w3.org?
Because it's really not that similar.
The W3C's software is not a standalone command-line version of the
validator - it's the software running the website, to enable people to
set up their own mirrors of the site.
Now, websites are all very well for ad-hoc verification of individual
pages, but the command-line is what you need for efficient batch jobs.
Received on Wed May 24 20:57:18 2006