- From: Laura Holmes <holmes@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:56:46 -0400
- To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
- Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <135a9f560707090756sf5731casefd6608830c6b523@mail.gmail.com>
Noted. In regard to the error position, I simply meant that as of right now, the test results do not record position information, such as line number. I think that that the code for position reporting should be in the functions.xsl doc? We can make a Java call from within each individual XSL test in order to give line number to the result reporting function, and then we can add any other data we might want. I don't think I was aware of an image specific error position type. I think there was a link floating around that had some basic sample position results? If someone can re-point me to that, I can take a stab at adding this to the result function in the functions.xsl file. If there's any more information I should know about implementing general position error reporting, please send it my way as well. Laura On 7/7/07, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote: > > Do whatever is easiest. If there are errors, the only real requirement > is to report the first error encountered accurately. Beyond that, all > else is a bonus. I am more concerned with getting everything basically > working, and not adding any more complexity. > > What's the issue with error position? we have a 'general' position > type that should always be used for image errors. There no such thing > as position for images -- I suppose you could refer to a byte that > didn't make sense but that doesn't seem useful or easy to obtain from > APIs. > > Sean > > On 7/6/07, Laura Holmes <holmes@google.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm working on the image resizing and specify test right now and I > wanted to > > ask for opinions. Here are options for how it is implemented: > > > > 1) As is, we have a series of if statements testing both height and > width > > (after we've established that indeed these tags are there). This means: > > - if we have a improperly formatted value, it records a test result > value > > that reflects the improper formatting and a test result that either > warns or > > fails depending on how the improper value is evaluated numerically > > - both width and height at evaluated simultaneously, so we can record > the > > line number in which the error occurred, but not which value > > > > 2) We can choose not to proceed with the tests after it's been > established > > that there's an improper value. However, if we stop here, if there's > another > > issue with the properly formatted value, we never report that > > > > 3) We can test height and width values separately. If it is determined > that > > the height or width is improperly formatted, we report that error, but > > continue testing the other value. > > > > Also, I'm still not quite sure what we determined about the position > > information format for error reporting. Roland, are you working on that? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers, > > Laura > > >
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 14:56:58 UTC