- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:17:29 +0900
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
- Cc: Olivier Théreaux <ot@w3.org>
Hi olivier, and others
I think it would be very useful to have a uniform output format for
validators. This being XML, text, or RDF is a secondary question for
now. I'm more interested for now of the abstract representation, then
we can choose a format. The benefits would be that we could leverage
the development we do for one tool and reuse it for other tools. No
needs to develop again and again the presentation layer for
validation results in each individual tools.
CSS validator:
- physical context: Line number
- logical context: class names or ids
- Message: descriptive with variations
- type of result: warning, error, level
Markup validator:
- physical context: line and column number
- logical context: extract of where the error is supposed to happen
- Message: short and long
Checklink:
- physical context: line number (more than one sometimes)
- logical context: the link which has been checked
- Message: status code and human readable
RDF Validator:
- physical context: line and column number
- Message: a code plus prose
Note: The RDF validator is a bit puzzling, for example on RDF/XML
it exits with Fatal error if it's non well formed. So it acts like an
XML validator in this case. It would be interesting to know what is
an invalid RDF file when the document is well formed (for any kind of
syntax, be RDF/turtle or RDF/XML).
Maybe we should ask Henri Sivonen, Sam Ruby as well.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 04:17:53 UTC