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

Re: For review by Friday 8 April 2011

From: Philip Ackermann <philip.ackermann@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:18:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9EE107.4070401@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Dear group,

On 04/06/2011 04:12 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra 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?

(1) EARL guide
(2) EARL conformance
(3) EARL schema

Both (1) and (3) pointing to (2).

> -- 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?

According to the paragraph about http entity headers from the spec 
(http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html) an entity header 
can be either a predefined header or an extension-header (== 
message-header). So making "EntityHeader" a new subclass of 
"MessageHeader" is the best way, I think.

Answer is 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?

Yes for all except #3. (use other prefix instead of "http").
I understand the problem but I don't like the idea of shortening an 
(well known) acronym. But from the given suggestions I would prefer 
"htp" for H(ypertext) T(ransfer) P(rotocol).

>
>
>
> Regards,
> Shadi
>

regards,
Philip

-- 
Philip Ackermann
   Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
   Web Compliance Center: http://webcc.fit.fraunhofer.de/
   Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
   Tel: +49-2241-142639
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 10:19:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 April 2011 10:19:23 GMT