Felix, Thanks for this. Now I see what you meant yesterday, and I think this works. Declaring default values (as you did for a few of them) is the obvious solution to one problem I faced: I didn't want to make the attributes mandatory if a tool could not declare them positively. But allowing the tool to omit them with a default value simplifies things greatly. I will revise my proposal accordingly. When I've done that I will send to a few people outside our group for review. My proposal right now addresses only the inline form. Perhaps you could give me a hand in coming up with the appropriate form for the global rules? Best, -Arle On Aug 7, 2012, at 08:40 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > Now, coming back to quality ... > I would like to say: each tool that claims to process global or local quality information processes all attributes. This does not mean that in the attributes are always present. But we shouldn't allow tools to pick a few attributes and do nothing with others. > To make expectations clearer, I would say in the "implementation" subsections the following: > > > > loc-quality-profile: mandatory; if human check, have a dedicated URI for that > > loc-quality-score: mandatory, value is 0-100 or "unknown" > > loc-quality-type: mandatory, value is "unknown" or what Arle had in the table "permissive values" > > loc-quality-comment: optional > > loc-quality-severity: mandatory, value is "unknown" or what Arle had in the table "permissive values" >
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 07:02:10 UTC