199 2003-04-19 02:09:06 +0000 Validator "API" Needs Sample Code. 2007-08-06 06:30:42 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator Documentation 0.6.1 All All RESOLVED WORKSFORME http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Dec/0067.html P2 enhancement 0.8.1 1 link link www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 448 0 link 2003-04-19 02:09:06 +0000 The various "APIs" to the Validator needs sample code to demonstrate how to use them. SOmething in the vein of the Perl snippet in the URL but for multiple languages, platforms, and environments. 498 1 link 2003-05-24 07:47:00 +0000 Retargetting 0.7.0 (by which time it may be mooted by SOAP). 2200 2 link 2004-09-01 13:03:43 +0000 Retargetting for 1.0; ain't gonna happen for 0.7 (and neither is SOAP). 12673 3 ot 2006-10-31 01:28:28 +0000 I think http://validator.w3.org/docs/api.html covers this. So does http://validator.localhost/docs/users.html#Output to some extent. closing. 12689 4 link 2006-10-31 08:18:37 +0000 There's not a single line of code in the API docs referenced. -> Reopening. 12747 5 ot 2006-11-01 14:47:18 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > There's not a single line of code in the API docs referenced. Then I disagree code samples are necessary. I'd rather we encouraged building libraries (see e.g http://www.w3.org/QA/2006/10/validator_api.html on the QA weblog), and link to these libraries. 12765 6 link 2006-11-01 20:22:22 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > Then I disagree code samples are necessary. I'd rather we encouraged building > libraries […] The relationship between those options is not "either or" but "and"; code samples are a good way to encourage building libraries. 15356 7 brett.bieber 2007-06-11 15:51:01 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > There's not a single line of code in the API docs referenced. -> Reopening. > If code is provided to interact with the API, the W3 would need to maintain their own library to interact with the API. I think this is unnecessary at the moment and we should just link to API libraries which have code samples and documentation. I feel that the W3 has fulfilled enough of an obligation by providing the SOAP output without causing additional coding support. The other alternative is to make an official API library supported by the W3, but this would add non-core burden on the validator team (there are already libraries which are in the wild and supported externally). A library which does have documentation and code samples is available at pear.php.net which could be link in the libraries references which may fulfill some of this bug. Link to library homepage: http://pear.php.net/package/Services_W3C_HTMLValidator API and methods available for the library: http://pear.php.net/package/Services_W3C_HTMLValidator/docs/latest/Services_W3C_HTMLValidator/Services_W3C_HTMLValidator.html API interaction example: http://pear.php.net/manual/en/package.webservices.services-w3c-htmlvalidator.examples.php 16062 8 ot 2007-08-06 06:30:42 +0000 Just added a link to the PEAR library into the API documentation. As for whether to give actual code bits to access the API, I have to admit: * I 've never see it done (checked a number of APIs like flickr, they all detail their API and give a list of libraries that bind to it) * I don't know how to do it without actually writing a library and showing the code, which I believe would be too verbose for the documentation. given the above, and although I do understand Terje's points, I'm closing as WORKSFORME.