- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:16:06 -0400
- To: "Laura Holmes" <holmes@google.com>
- Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
I think a common function to extract line number from the DOM is a good idea. There isn't an image-specific position type; there's a "general" type. I would simply omit <position> for errors that do not usefully pertain to a position in the source document -- like in an image. Sean On 7/9/07, Laura Holmes <holmes@google.com> wrote: > 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 15:16:18 UTC