- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:03:23 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Carlos Iglesias schrieb: > Then maybe could be better just an additional earl:warning property for the TestResult class NACK, see Charles' comment on warnings. > I mean, if we encourage tool developers to create, publish and maintain the RDFS with their subclasses then we should also encourage tool developers to support and interpret others subclasses (if we want EARL reports to be interoperable on the Validity Level) and that's too much additional work for tool developer. Because tools developers treat EARL reports as XML, not RDF? :-) > Note that, even if we create new subclasses, the warning itself will remain as a text-based message (and not values that tools can pick up and work with), won't it? The tools could be aware that there's something "strange" there (a warning) but that's all they get. Something like: > > Hey! There's a warning over there and it means: "text-based message" But they need to know, how the warning has to be treated. Is it a "pass but", is it a "pass if" or whatever. IMHO, EARL is foremost a machine-readable reporting language. -- 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, 25 October 2006 10:04:03 UTC