W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Image size error reporting

From: Laura Holmes <holmes@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:56:46 -0400
Message-ID: <135a9f560707090756sf5731casefd6608830c6b523@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

In regard to the error position, I simply meant that as of right now, the
test results do not record position information, such as line number. I
think that that the code for position reporting should be in the
functions.xsl doc? We can make a Java call from within each individual XSL
test in order to give line number to the result reporting function, and then
we can add any other data we might want.

I don't think I was aware of an image specific error position type. I think
there was a link floating around that had some basic sample position
results? If someone can re-point me to that, I can take a stab at adding
this to the result function in the functions.xsl file. If there's any more
information I should know about implementing general position error
reporting, please send it my way as well.


On 7/7/07, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote:
> Do whatever is easiest. If there are errors, the only real requirement
> is to report the first error encountered accurately. Beyond that, all
> else is a bonus. I am more concerned with getting everything basically
> working, and not adding any more complexity.
> What's the issue with error position? we have a 'general' position
> type that should always be used for image errors. There no such thing
> as position for images -- I suppose you could refer to a byte that
> didn't make sense but that doesn't seem useful or easy to obtain from
> APIs.
> Sean
> On 7/6/07, Laura Holmes <holmes@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I'm working on the image resizing and specify test right now and I
> wanted to
> > ask for opinions. Here are options for how it is implemented:
> >
> > 1) As is, we have a series of if statements testing both height and
> width
> > (after we've established that indeed these tags are there). This means:
> > - if we have a improperly formatted value, it records a test result
> value
> > that reflects the improper formatting and a test result that either
> warns or
> > fails depending on how the improper value is evaluated numerically
> > - both width and height at evaluated simultaneously, so we can record
> the
> > line number in which the error occurred, but not which value
> >
> > 2) We can choose not to proceed with the tests after it's been
> established
> > that there's an improper value. However, if we stop here, if there's
> another
> > issue with the properly formatted value, we never report that
> >
> > 3) We can test height and width values separately. If it is determined
> that
> > the height or width is improperly formatted, we report that error, but
> > continue testing the other value.
> >
> > Also, I'm still not quite sure what we determined about the position
> > information format for error reporting. Roland, are you working on that?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Laura
> >
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 14:56:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:18 UTC