W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2005

Re: What is a subject of a test?

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:28:20 +0200
To: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003201c535d3$faa89150$4502010a@K2>

Hi,

> Test case: validates against referenced DTD

This is a very broad "test case", I suspect most validators would
execute several smaller tests to validate this. This comes back to the
"evidence" discussion. For example:
 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Mar/0035.html>


> Version 2 looks strange to me because the machine-processable 
> information (testCase, subject, validity) are the same and only the 
> (human-readable) message differs.
> 
> Would it be necessary for the EARL spec to clearly define how to do
that 
> in order to make interchange of EARL reports possible?

Yes, I think you are absolutely right that we need to clearly define
this situation in the specification.

However, it seems to me that the description of location within the
message part of the assertion is not an ideal approach because it could
not be processed automatically anymore. Maybe we would need more than
one "location" attribute or even multiple "subject". We should discuss
this.


> As said earlier, whether you can specify an XPath is not a matter of a

> document being well-formed. Well-formedness is a terminology of the
XML 
> world. An HTML document cannot be well-formed, because it is not XML. 
> But it is possible to identify nodes with an XPath, because you can 
> create a DOM document.

My understanding is that XPath does not define what a parser should do
for non-wellformed documents. This means we would be left with the mess
of different parser interpretations and implementations of how they
handle DOM. Do you have more information on how well XPath parsers
support DOM, especially how interoperable these implementations are?


> What remains is if there are xpath-like ways for non-markup resources.

We certainly need a fallback that works in *any* case. I think URL (as
in EARL currently) works pretty fine. Do you want to research other
approaches as well?


Regards,
  Shadi
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 09:28:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:25 GMT