Re: correct RDF Re: Locating In EARL Example

I've got a new version that, finally, validates and incorporates several of 
the ideas suggested on the list. Here's the EARL that describes an image 
that is missing an alt attribute:
http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/test1-earl2.html

I'm using the code snipped from Johannes for describing the location of the 
error. (Thanks Johannes.)
<rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
<earl:xpath>/html/body/p/img</earl:xpath>
<earl:line 
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#Integer">9</earl:line>
<earl:src>rex.jpg</earl:src>
</rdf:li>

I've put the location inside a rdf:bag as suggested by Shadi.

The date and other smaller things have been fixed up. (Thanks Charles.) 
There are likely still things that can be fixed up with this EARL code so 
let me know if you spot anything else.

Here's a more tricky example. This accessibility test requires that link 
text describe the link destination. The link text can be regular text within 
the anchor or can be the alt text of an image within the anchor. The test 
file 197-5 has an anchor containing no link text but an image with improper 
alt text. The description of the this error therefore needs to include 2 
pieces of information - the anchor and the image.
http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/test197-earl.html

Here's the suggested EARL code for describing the error:
<!-- this describes the anchor -->
<rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
<earl:line>9</earl:line>
<earl:href>spending.html</earl:href>
<earl:xpath>/html/body/p/a</earl:xpath>
<earl:name>anchor</earl:name>
</rdf:li>

<!-- this describes the image with improper alt text -->
<rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
<earl:line>9</earl:line>
<earl:xpath>/html/body/p/a/img</earl:xpath>
<earl:name>image</earl:name>
<earl:alt>image</earl:alt>
<earl:src>more.gif</earl:src>
</rdf:li>

Using this information, we can find the accessibility error again even if 
the document has been modified (assuming the error is still there). I think 
we can use this strategy for describing most all accessibility errors. 
Comments?

Cheers,
Chris

Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 09:05:50 UTC