It’s just data

W3C Feed validator

W3C: The W3C Feed Validator exposes its Web service as a SOAP 1.2 interface, which you can use in your own applications. [via Robert Sayre]

re: appropriates?  Nay, I actually encourage this.  I only hope that they keep it up to date (there are significant changes coming this weekend, for example).

As to the SOAP 1.2 interface, I was unaware of this.


The update part worries me, but I’m more than willing to forgive them their web service foibles in exchange for having a validation textarea available to the public: I keep wanting the one I did years ago to be repaired, but never quite badly enough to actually repair it myself.

I’m not quite sure how I would recommend someone keep their validator updated: you’re probably much more careful, but especially for UI things I tend to use feedvalidator.org as my test install. Maybe I should move my working copy somewhere web accessible. Checking out “-D (24 hours ago)” ought to be safe, but checking out the tip? I’m not making any guarantees (though, if they do keep up with the tip, fear of breaking the W3C will paralyze me, so I won’t ever check in, and they’ll be safe).

Posted by Phil Ringnalda at

Hmm, the dictionary definition of “appropriate” the verb is just awful. I thought I was using the art definition, which is much less negative, and just the sort of thing you encourage. Anyway, it is funny that the first thing they’ve done is add a SOAP 1.2 interface

Posted by Robert Sayre at

W3C validator supports Web Service Interfaces

Via Sam Ruby: W3C的一系列Feed Validator接口现在已经支持使用Web Service方式进行访问,具体的协议使用的是SOAP 1.2。...

Excerpt from keke at

Words fail me.

Posted by Mark at

Hmm. A problem I hadn’t thought of: we would of course like other validators to include the “Not clear? Disagree?” link to our mailing list, but it seems to be their only point of contact, so if you “Disagree” with their advice to Movable Type users to use a template specific to 2.51-2.6 no matter what version of MT they might be using, you can only tell us, and then we’ll tell you we already pulled it and it’s not our problem. If that specific case starts to bother me enough, I can guess well enough who on the qa-dev team to contact, but I certainly don’t see any smooth and general “if you see the same problem on feedvalidator.org, please comment [here] but if you only see it on this site, please comment [here] instead” solution.

Posted by Phil Ringnalda at

Sam just pointed me to this - I was surprised the service was already talked about, as we hadn’t made it public yet, for a reason: it wasn’t ready :).

Phil: please do not worry about committing: obviously we will try to keep the service up to date as much as possible, and we have a test instance to check the cvs version before it ever goes to the public service, so the possibility of a commit causing havoc, at least on that particular instance, is low.

Re: feedback, the feedback instructions on the w3c instance now explain where to send messages (w3c or sourceforge), but for most users, making the difference will not be trivial, so we’ll need to find a good balance.

Posted by olivier Thereaux at

link to our mailing list

We simply need to promote a more inclusive definition of “our”.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Add your comment