- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:45:13 +1000
- To: "Nils Ulltveit-Moe" <nils@u-moe.no>, "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:22:48 +1000, Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no> wrote: > I think it would be an advantage if EARL was defined with an option to > be able to convey the HTML source, a digital signature of the source and > also the HTTP header of the document being tested, in a similar way to > what Annotea does when it wraps in the HTML annotation in an RDF > description. If more than one resource is involved in the assessment, > then the protocol might have the option of wrapping in all the resources > involved in the assessment, and their original URL during the > assessment, to be able to recreate the scenario. Yep. Having looked at Annotea, do you think we can simply directly use some of their properties? So among the information we are looking at being able to add is a set of HTTP headers sent with the GET and received with the reply, the body of what is returned by HTTP (which confusingly means a whole HTML document including its "head" :-) and a package that replicates what the document actually includes. For the packaging there are plenty of examples of how to do it - most modern browsers can save a web page complete with some set of included objects. What is the priority of this work? > This would be useful as evidence for ... > > I think this should be an optional possibility, not mandatory, since not > all tool vendors will use this. Right. In many instances a tool developer might record just the body of a page (since a large number of checkpoints in WCAG can be referred against the HTML body without reference to externally linked objects. A tool like AccMonitor running over a site of tens of thousands of pages every night is unlikely to copy them. It is easier and more effective to rely on the site administrator's backups in that kind of enterprise scenario... And a review of a W3C draft against SpecGL is unlikely to include a copy of a document that is notionally more stable than the review results... And sometimes maintaining a copy of someone else's material is a breach of a copyright or licensing condition or other agreement... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 13:46:53 UTC