This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: preprocess script & XHTML
- From: "Andrea 'fwyzard' Bocci" <fwyzard at inwind dot it>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 17:05:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: preprocess script & XHTML
- References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030328201028.020bbd78@wheresmymailserver.com><5.2.0.9.2.20030328201028.020bbd78@wheresmymailserver.com>
At 18.35 04/04/2003 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Andrea Bocci wrote:
> I've finally found the time to put together a modified preprocess script
> that also validates the pages for xhtml compliance after updating them,
> and generates a final report with the status of all the gcc pages.
Ah, that's nice. Do you have that on the web somewhere for the
gcc.gnu.org pages, so that we can use it right away?
I've got a recent mirror ofthe GCC website at
http://utenti.lycos.it/fwyzard/gcc/index.html, with the validation infos at
http://utenti.lycos.it/fwyzard/gcc/xhtml.html. Unfortunatly, re-valiating
the documents on-line doesn't work on that mirror, because of the banners
the provider adds at the end of each files :-(.
The validation infos should be correct, however, as I validated all the
page soff-line and then uploaded everything.
I can change the script to use the online W3C validator if
> you prefer, so no local sotware would be needed, but that can be quite
> slower.
If you don't mind, I'd like to give that a try, because that's the
validator we are currently using, so people are familiar with it, and
that way, developers can use this very nice feature without having to
install the WDG validator.
No problem.
I can have both in, and use a command line option to switch between them,
defaulting to the W3C online validator.
This way, the offline (faster) functions can be used, but are not required.
[...]
Concerning the main change, I hope you don't mind, but I believe a bit
of documentation (in form of comments) is needed.
Also, could we make this verification a (command-line) option, which at
least in the beginning defaults to off?
Perhaps we can then avoid some of the new functions, by having the
existing ones check for a global flag and perform the check only if that
is set? What do you think?
OK, next week I'll be at CERN, so I'll have some time to write a new
version, with comments, both online and offline validators, and command
line switches.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/
Andrea