W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Where does the EARL go?

From: Jim Ley <jim@e-media.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:36:21 -0000
Message-ID: <002a01c158d5$54aeba60$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> > How can EARL exist unless this has already been decided,
> > how EARL is used is much more important than what the
> > tags look like.  I'm astonished by this thread.
>
> "Than what the tags look like"? Your reply is a little incoherant here,
but
> mine was also badly phrased.

As Wendy said, all focus was on the developer, that was a big mistake,
and one I can't understand how it was made.

> > > For now, all EARL is going to be served as text/plain
> > > or text/xml, so just leave the "type" attribute off. It's
> > > only advisory.
> >
> > Why is EARL served as text/plain - why do you feel it
> > should not have a mime-type, [incredible length sentence
> > snipped]
>
> EARL can be served as text/plain because EARL is based on RDF, and RDF
is
> often served as text/plain, or text/xml depending upon the
serialization.

I know why EARL can be served as text/plain, it's just useless to do it
as I see it.  How do I configure my user agent to cope with it (bearing
in my mind my user agent is a webbrowser, and text/plain is human
readable, it's no use having EARL displayed in my browser which is the
current setting for text/plain.) It needs a MIME type.

If it's mandated by RDF, then RDF gets in the way, it doesn't do the job
of making EARL reports useful.  It needs a MIME-type, and "text/x-earl"
seems appropriate to me for now.  What's your reasoning against that?
Even if there was a consensus on the MIME-type for RDF what would that
bring, how would I (without getting some RDF parser, which I don't need,
I just need EARL.) use EARL?  I couldn't pass all text/rdf (or whatever)
to my EARL parser could I?

> and you have had plenty of time with which to send feedback.

The conclusion to that is, that new input is not welcome, I obviously
scanned the archives before joining, but resurecting old threads would've
been little use out of context.

Jim.
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 15:38:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:39 GMT