W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2011

Re: For review by Friday 8 April 2011

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:22:21 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Qq3jDHRqeXRgSp5kG_oSD11EsGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear group,

Find my answers, below:

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 15:12, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> ERT WG,
>
> Please review and respond to the following points by Friday 8 April:
>
>
> #1. Separating conformance/restrictions for vocabulary definitions
>
>  - previous discussions:
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item04>
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-er-minutes#item02>
>
>  - more detailed explanation:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0007>
>
>  - questions to consider:
>  -- can you live with conformance/restrictions moving out of the vocabulary
> definition documents, and into a more specific document?

Yes.

>  -- if so, what other guidance would go along with this guidance on
> conformance/restrictions for EARL tool developers?

IMHO, it should be normative, not merely informative.

>  -- is it imaginable that the focus (and title, if needed) of the EARL Guide
> could shift to match the guidance we want to provide?

Yes.

> References:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#conformance>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Schema-20091029/#conformance>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#conformance>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#conformance>
>
>
> #2. HTTP-in-RDF Message Header
>
>  - previous discussion:
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
>
>  - proposed solution:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0008>
>
>  - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?

Yes.

> References:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MessageClass>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MessageClass>
>
>
> #3. HTTP-in-RDF PATCH Method
>
>  - previous discussion:
>  -- <http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-er-minutes#item05>
>
>  - proposed solution:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Apr/0001>
>
>  - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?

Yes.

> References:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues#MethodClass>
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-HTTP-in-RDF10-20091029/#MethodClass>
>
>
> #4. Proposed batch-resolutions
>
>  - suggestions for resolutions to open comments:
>  -- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2011Mar/0010>
>
>  - note: item #5 dct:identifier/status code will be handled separately
>
>  - question to consider: do you accept the proposed solution?

Other than dct:identifier/status code (as pointed out), yes.



Cheers,
Rui




>
>
> Regards,
>  Shadi
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>  WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 08:23:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 April 2011 08:23:11 GMT