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

Re: For review by Friday 8 April 2011

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:26:27 +0300
Message-ID: <4c7ab87ab9dc6d186a686cde73411810.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "Philip Ackermann" <philip.ackermann@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: "ERT WG" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
because i forgot to comment on the item#3 (use other prefix instead of
"http") i fully aggree with philip that it is better to keep the well
known http

regards
kostas

> 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 10:26:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 April 2011 10:26:56 GMT