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

Re: Validation as EARL

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:18:15 -0000
Message-ID: <01a101c15c75$3357b6c0$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
"Nick Kew":

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> >   Ahem - did you read the page?  The validator is generating XML to
start
> >   with: the EARL is generated by filtering it through XSLT!
> >
> > Yep, but I meant RDF XML syntax instead of N3 syntax. (there are
online
> > conversion services available to do this - Sean probably has a URI to
hand).
>
> Hmmm - fair enough, but is there any advantage to using EARL as your
> starting point over using XML?

The XML serialisation of EARL is much, much nicer than the N3 (that's
personal opinion of course.), and more importantly there's a parser
installed with lots of the browsers out there - Forcing a Python + Python
libraries to get the Snufkin Earl client running is I think
unreasonable - quite apart from being a 15mb download rather than the
current 300k.

> > I think it looks like two sets of reports that have some conflicting
> > statements about the same objects. They would also differ in author
and date.
>
> - and presumably the acid test is whether you can really gain anything
> by combining those reports?

Of course you can, it's not (currently) feasible to integrate my script
checker with Site-Valet - I can't even put a web interface on it at this
time, yet a combined report would be useful to users.

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 06:19:11 GMT

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