W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > March 2005

Re: MarkupValidator/M12N: observation/observators

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:11:47 +0100
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <425af606.180569656@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* olivier Thereaux wrote:
>The Observation/observer model is very well developed already... The 
>main point of my focus for suggestions was what is called "descriptor" 
>for an observation (for which I would probably use some term like 
>"context").

I currently consider error message text and long descriptions to
be "descriptors", so "context" is not really the right term here.

>On "Unfortunately not all input has a network location", I think we 
>really need to come up with a way to have an identifier for each 
>resource. data: URL scheme is out of question for the reasons described 
>in the doc, but I think we could use a "private" URI space with URIs 
>that do not dereference to anything, e.g 
>http://vwo/id/upload/verylongidentifier (md5?)

I believe various qa-dev participants oppose locators that do not
locate anything, as such, this is not a good solution.

>The text has a section on how descriptors should be able to identify a 
>single character in the source. I would expand this a little further to 
>require that a descriptor/context should identify a given range in the 
>source (and then a single character would be a specific type of range). 
>That's probably not compatible with the current observation model of 
>e.g OpenSP.

That's basically covered by "more sophisticated highlighting", it
could be more explicit though.

>First thought on this matter was that perhaps OpenSP in itself was not 
>a "full" observer and should be wrapped in something else to be one, 
>but the next section on identifiers and the description of observations 
>made me think that maybe this was a non-issue, if each observation id 
>could be described as being such and such type of error/violation.

The main problem here is that there are many notions of errors, in
XML 1.0 alone we have wf-errors, validity-errors, and errors. This
is really about whether Validator should just define "error" and
the reporter reports all wf-errors, validity-errors, and errors as
just "errors", or whether the Validator is constantly updated to
take all sorts of errors into account (the validator would know
about xml-wf-errors, xml-validity-errors, xml-errors, xml-ns-wf-
errors, xml-ns-validity-errors, ...) or whether the framework does
not know about this at all and the observators are responsible for
this or whether you try to do both (e.g., having a real severity
and a BaseSeverity).
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 19:12:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:45 GMT