« Return to Thread: Re: Notes on validome test suite / validators comparison
Re: Critical bug 4916 (was: Notes on validome test suite / validators comparison)
by Validome-Staff
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Hi Frank,
>> The regexp in STD 66 is a one-liner, and
determining the set
>> of visible ASCII characters allowed in an URI is "possible".
>> of visible ASCII characters allowed in an URI is "possible".
and
> all applications
> allowing to click on URIs could indirectly start malware.
> allowing to click on URIs could indirectly start malware.
Fixing the schema is one thing...What about the
same issue within HTML documents?
No XHTML --> no schema validation...As you see, what we need is much more than a schema fix. It is a new concept and code for a reliable URI check in XHTML *and* HTML. A URI checker that covers ALL aspects of failures...
Frank, beeing honest, you could create hundreds of test cases concerning URI, even schema validators don't detect. Just try it and you'll see, it is about new, reliable solutions and not about "patchy fixes"...;-)
No XHTML --> no schema validation...As you see, what we need is much more than a schema fix. It is a new concept and code for a reliable URI check in XHTML *and* HTML. A URI checker that covers ALL aspects of failures...
Frank, beeing honest, you could create hundreds of test cases concerning URI, even schema validators don't detect. Just try it and you'll see, it is about new, reliable solutions and not about "patchy fixes"...;-)
Perhaps it's time to antiquate the term "validator"
as it is and seriously discuss about "conformity checkers", as a validator - as
defined at the moment - can not keep pace with new requirements and fast
application development of these days.
Best regards,
Alex
« Return to Thread: Re: Notes on validome test suite / validators comparison
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |