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 11:27:13 -0400
Message-ID: <135a9f560707090827u6ea68b31gf6a912a802f63ebf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
To reiterate a point that Dom made in the caching resources thread, what if
there was an error in the source document that stated the incorrect
dimensions of an image? Wouldn't we want to report that line number to the
user? I can understand a general error message for situations such as
erroneous references to images.

On 7/9/07, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote:
>
> I think a common function to extract line number from the DOM is a good
> idea.
>
> There isn't an image-specific position type; there's a "general" type.
> I would simply omit <position> for errors that do not usefully pertain
> to a position in the source document -- like in an image.
>
> Sean
>
> On 7/9/07, Laura Holmes <holmes@google.com> wrote:
> > Noted.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Laura
> >
> >
> > 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 15:27:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:03 GMT