- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:30:15 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Carlos Iglesias wrote: >>>- LESS THAN A PAGE >>> >>>A snippet of code: >>> >>>e.g. A claim about the following snippet >>> >>>... >>><h3>Snippet section</h3> >>><p class="foo-paragraph">Some dummy test and an <img >>>class="beauty-image" alt="Beautiful image" / ></p> ... >>> >>>which can be found at http://www.example.org/foo.xhtml >>> >>>--> Apparently this is NOT COVERED in any of the WCL URI >> >>matching requirements, but as discussed before within the >>group, it may not be necessary since we have a snippet pointer. >> >>For XML resources this could be done using xpointer in the >>URI fragment. > > Unfortunately the model must be applicable to HTML and maybe other non > XML resources. Yep. As you said, use the snippet pointer for non-XML resources. >>>- GROUPS OF PAGES >>> >>> * A domain (All the resources within the specified domain) >>> >>>e.g. A claim about the http://www.helloworld.net/ domain >> >>What is the domain here? www.helloworld.net? helloworld.net? net? > > If I do a claim about the www.helloworld.net domain, this is the domain. > If I do a claim about the helloworld.net domain, this is the domain. > If I do a claim about the .net domain, this is the domain. SCNR :-) >>>--> It is COVERED by 3 [Match a (sub-)domain and all sub-domains, >>>--> except for those sub-domain patterns given by a list.] >>> >>>A potential issue at this point is that the XG has decided >> >>[4] to adopt RDF-CL [5] in which subdomains of given host are >>always in scope [6], but as noted at the group minutes they >>will carry out whatever changes needed to make RDF-CL meet >>their requirements. >> >>You mean, this is an issue with exclusions? > > I mean this could be a potential issue with sub-domain exclusions. I see >>>Additionally the XG has requirements on scheme, port, query >> >>and fragment patterns, but as CarlosV noted in the past there >>are other options, frequently used by crawler tools (e.g. >>path depth limits), that are not covered with the current >>requirements. >> >>AFAIR, there should be a way to compress statements in an >>EARL report, so that not every resource/web unit has to be >>listed explicitly. This compression is most likely not >>lossless. I very much doubt that we can create a lossless >>compression. There are too many parameters. And what would be >>the benefit? If we wanted to know whether a specific resource >>is part of the subject of the compressed statement, we would >>have to run a crawler with all the specified parameters first? Hmm > > AFAIR, this has something to do with semantics (logical groups of > resources) and not only compression. I can group resources by listing them explicitly, or I can compress this by using some shorter form (regexp or WCL/matching). -- Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 12:30:41 UTC