W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Subtests that apply to HTTP header fields [was: Re: mobileOK validation logic - jar file?]

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:25:10 +0100
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Cc: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-mobileok-checker@w3.org, Kentarou Fukuda <KENTAROU@jp.ibm.com>, Yeliz Yesilada <yeliz.yesilada@manchester.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <1234513510.6713.4.camel@localhost>

Le jeudi 12 février 2009 à 18:43 +0100, Francois Daoust a écrit :
> 3/ I think there is a useful distinction to be made between a subtest 
> that can't be run because some data is missing, and a subtest that can't 
> be run because it doesn't need to, i.e. if there are no objects in the 
> page, the OBJECT_OR_SCRIPTS subtests de facto pass. The first 
> possibility is what we're talking about. The second possibility may be 
> of some use in the future (I'm not suggesting we implement it right 
> now). In short, I would rather keep NOT_APPLICABLE to the second case, 
> and use DATA_MISSING (I can't think of a better proposal, but the idea 
> is to point out that the moki representation is incomplete) for checks 
> on files.

FWIW, EARL [1] has "Cannot Tell" that I think could be used for cases
like this; it would probably be worth using that term in this context.

1. http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10//#outcomevalue


Dom
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 08:26:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 February 2009 08:26:11 GMT