- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 05:57:47 -0500 (EST)
- To: Shadi Abou-zahra <shadi@abou-zahra.net>
- cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, <www-validator@w3.org>
There are a couple of issues here. I don't have a problem with a tool that just gives a yes/no answer, but I think it is less useful than one which can identify the nature of a problem and whereabouts in a document the problem occurs in an interoperable way. This is why EARL has bits to identify those things (or at least hooks for them to attach to). There is a problem in working out (for example) how to refer to a given error in HTML validation - the DTD is not exactly loaded with helpful IDs for error conditions. This is probably an area to talk to the W3C QA activity about... cheers Chaals On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Shadi Abou-zahra wrote: > >[cross post] > >while i agree that the specific error messages are tool specific and may >need to be handled separately, i disagree that the validation should be >reduced to a mere yes / no statement (which is what i understood from >your mail). > >actually i believe that the errors should be bound even more tightly to >the respective checkpoints in order to be able to sort them according to >the priority. maybe more accurate conformance level claims can be >achieved this way too. > >regards, > shadi > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org >> [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nick Kew >> Sent: Dienstag, 11. März 2003 23:08 >> To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org; www-validator@w3.org >> Subject: Revisiting EARL for Validation >> >> >> >> >> [ Note crosspost ] >> >> I'm making major revisions to Page Valet. >> >> Part of this is a review of the EARL output option. It seems to me >> that the existing use of EARL in validation is something of a >> mismatch. >> >> Basically, the validator is making exactly one assertion: that a >> page is or isn't valid (passes or fails the test of being valid >> markup). Individual error messages are not really meaningful as >> EARL assertions: defining the testsubject for them has always been >> problematic, and repeating "fails" for each assertion is artificial. >> >> My current thinking is that the validator should make exactly >> one EARL assertion, and that the individual messages should be >> attached as qualifiers. They will then fall outside the EARL >> vocabulary, but that's IMO preferable to shoehorning it. >> >> So we have something like >> >> <rdf:RDF> >> >> <Assertor rdf:ID="validator"> >> bla bla bla >> </Assertor> >> >> <Assertion rdf:ID="validation"> >> <!-- standard EARL-ish stuff something like --> >> <Subject... (the page)> >> <Date ...> >> <TestCase .. (isvalid)> >> <Result ... (pass|fail) >> <assertedBy ... (validator)> >> <note> (whatever) </note> >> >> >> <!-- and actual errors if any, in their own namespace --> >> <val:error rdf:resource="#err1"/> >> .... >> </Assertion> >> >> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="err1"> >> <val:line>4</val:line> >> <val:char>52</val:char> >> <val:message>You can't do that here!</val:message> >> </rdf:Description> >> >> </rdf:RDF> >> >> >> Does this make sense? Any thoughts? >> >> -- >> Nick Kew >> > > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia or W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 05:57:52 UTC