W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Summary and proposals from 11 December chat

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:49:54 -0000
Message-ID: <020401c2a206$eff7e7a0$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>

"Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
> Discussion about making testmode a property of the Assertor or the
> [http://notabug.com/er/chatlogs/2002-12-11.html#T18-29-39]
> We had a 2-to-1 split on how to resolve this.  The stronger position is
> only allow mode as a property of assertion because allowing it on
> requires an extra processing step that might not be handled by current

I'm inclined towards having it on the assertion, but the cost here is a
lack of brevity so it would be nice if it could be inherited, I don't see
much of a problem in having it in both places.  The downside is that the
naive tool won't know what type of test was done, that's hardly
disastrous though.

> Currently, the schema says:
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&earl;reprOf" rdfs:label="reprOf">
>   <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Resource"/>
> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&earl;WebContent"/>
> Leaving the range open so that people can extend as needed.

I understood you never used range  rdf:resource="rdfs:resource" anyway,
since everything is a resource so it's an entirely redundant statement.
I could be wrong though, my experience is limited.

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 12:50:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:34 UTC