- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:17:26 +0100
- To: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
We reviewed the results document format today, and reviewed using the EARL RDF vocabulary to express it. I believe the general consensus is that yes, we will use EARL and it meets our needs. I note three key points we discussed on this topic: 1. Warnings EARL has a notion of "info" messages for test results, but not warnings. This is on purpose. mobileOK Basic tests may generate both informational and warning messages which must be distinct. We decided to add our own RDF subclass of "info" representing a warning for our purposes. Problem solved. 2. Assertor We discussed at length the need to report the mobileOK Basic test implementation and version used in the test results. EARL explicitly supports this. We also discussed a need to report the versions of various subcomponents in use by the implementation (e.g. Xerces 2.0, Java 5.0, HttpClient 3.1beta). EARL also supports this via Compound Assertors. 3. Schemas There is no fixed XML schema for EARL, as it's RDF-based, but for our simple application of EARL it would be possible to write a schema describing how we express the test results in RDF. So, we should do that too, to give other implementations an example to follow. Sean
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 16:17:47 UTC