Re: mobileOK intermediate format (moki)

Hi Sean,

Sean Owen wrote:
> EARL is an application of RDF. There is already an XML schema for the
> earl: namespace. As applied to describing HTTP, it happens to also fit
> the tree-oriented model of XML already. That is it makes sense as XML
> too already. Why do we need another schema? is it that we need to
> impose tighter constraints on ordering?

Actually, ERT WG doesn't (yet) have an XML schema for EARL and/or the 
HTTP stuff -it is currently all in RDF. However, it seems that this and 
potentially other groups would need such XML schemas so it may make 
sense for ERT WG to look into creating one.


> Put another way: what goes so wrong if we reuse the earl: namespace
> rather than write the same elements again in another namespace?

I don't think we need to create a new namespace, we should be able to 
reuse the currently existing EARL/HTTP elements. What I mean is an XML 
schema on top of these elements (that are currently described in RDF).


> Did that make any sense?

Yes, I hope I did too. Maybe Jo can confirm what his initial thoughts 
were too...


> On 4/24/07, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
>> > b) I wonder if it would be a good idea to separate out the http part 
>> (and
>> > possibly others) into standalone schemas?
>>
>> As above, I'd be happy to work with you on such an XML schema for the
>> HTTP Vocabulary (in RDF).

Regards,
   Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |

Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 08:02:27 UTC