On Aug 28, 3:02 am, James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > None from me. I assume the additional validation logic will be optional in the > sense that it will be possible to run without checking for non-syntax errors.
That is the plan, yes. > If you plan to change the format of testcases, we should talk to the other > people who are using our tests (e.g. Henri Sivonen, Phillip Taylor) to > minimize > their pain. I've checked in revision 962 for the error message refactoring. I only touched the Python code; Ryan said he would make equivalent changes on the Ruby side. The refactoring involved one small change to the testing harness (line 79 of test_parser.py) because p.errors now contains 3 items, not 2. The third item is a dictionary of named values to substitute into the error message text. See constants.E if that's unclear. I didn't change any actual tests. -Mark --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "html5lib-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to html5lib-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/html5lib-discuss?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4