W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > July 2007

Re: UPDATED: Pointers changes and issues

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:25:46 +0200
Message-ID: <469E30FA.5030802@w3.org>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org


Here is another thought of how the model could look like:

PointerGroup (ptr:pointer)

Pointer (ptr:reference)
| |-ExpressionPointer (dc:hasVersion, ptr:expression)
| | |-XPathPointer (ptr:namespace)
| | |-XPointerPointer (ptr:namespace?)
| | |-[HTMLPointer]
| | '-CSSPointer
| |-OffsetPointer (ptr:offset)
| | |-CharOffsetPointer
| | '-ByteOffsetPointer
| |-SnippetPointer (ptr:snippet)
| | |-CharSnippetPointer
| | '-ByteSnippetPointer
| '-LineCharPointer (ptr:line, ptr:char)
'-CompoundPointer (ptr:startPointer)
   |-StartEndPointer (ptr:endPointer)
   |-StartOffsetPointer (ptr:offsetPointer)
   '-StartSnippetPointer (ptr:snippetPointer)

As you see, the only difference is disjoining PointerGroup from Pointer. 
However, I don't think this is a problem as we want to use PointerGroup 
in EARL anyway (rather than Pointer itself). See:
  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-EARL10-Schema-20070323/#testresult>

Here is an example earl:TestResult to highlight how this will be plugged 
into the EARL Schema:

<earl:TestResult rdf:about="#result">
   <earl:outcome rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#fail"/>
   <dc:title xml:lang="en">Invalid Markup (code #353)</dc:title>
   <dc:description rdf:parseType="Literal" xml:lang="en">
     <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
       <p>The <code>table</code> element is not allowed to appear
         inside a <code>p</code> element</p>
   <dc:date rdf:datatype="&xsd;#date">2006-08-13</dc:date>
         <!--// another pointer here //-->
   <earl:info rdf:parseType="Literal" xml:lang="en">
     <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
       <p>It seems the <code>p</code> element has not been closed</p>

This means earl:pointer would have the range of ptr:PointerGroup. It may 
be slightly more verbose because you need to have an EquivalentPointer 
or RelatedPointer node everytime even if you only have one pointer, but 
somehow it seems clearer and cleaner to me.

Any thoughts?


Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 15:29:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:55 UTC