- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:05:04 +1000
- To: "Gabriele Bartolini" <me@gabrielebartolini.it>, "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, shadi@w3.org
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:51:57 +1000, Gabriele Bartolini <me@gabrielebartolini.it> wrote: > > At 17.48 07/04/2005, Carlos A Velasco wrote: >> I believe that EARL shall be flexible enough to allow different >> Location approaches depending on the resource's type. I don't have any >> brilliant solution at the moment, but it is something we must include >> in the requirements. We shall not simply disregard these resources, and >> then say "for that resource, we give only its URL as location of a >> problem." > > Exactly. We briefly discussed this - I guess - in the call immediately > after Easter. Yep. And as I recall from the meeting we started down the XML path because that's the easy one, although we have already noted several times that we might be looking at a piece of software, or something where URIs are not applicable. (Little reminder - a URI in RDF doesn't mean the thing you get when you feed the URI to a browser - there's just a happy coincidence that the two are often equivalent. For some types of equivalence). ... > IMO location should be depending on the resource type. Better, on the > specific algorithm used to locate/retrieve subjects regarding a > particular content-type. ... > And EARL should be flexible in order to allow these way of acting. > > It's getting harder for me to explain. However, see it in an Object > Oriented way: every resource type will specifically (or polymorphically) > redefine the behaviour of these mechanisms and use properties that can > vary from type to type. ... > Any comments? I thought you explained it pretty well :-) But I think that as well as the resource type determining what kind of addressing is useful, the tests might be an important factor. For instance I made a test set for MUTAT that covers SpecGL, a test of specifications. Although in most cases they are on the Web (and in the W3C case as XHTML - although in other cases they might be Word documents, or just printed paper), a URI is often not the most useful way to identify a part, and instead a section number or something similar is more appropriate. Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 06:05:20 UTC