- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:16:33 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
>> How is this different from the "earl:tool" element? > Thanks for the explanation. I think I've got it now and I'm OK with having this extra flexibility. > Because in RDF the basic model is that things have relations with other > things (rather than XMLs basic model where elements have content including > other elements - why XML has predictable structure and RDF doesn't... > This is one topic that I'm still not clear on so please forgive my ignorance. I assume that our EARL, which is RDF and XML, will have a schema which states which elements and attributes can be present. The schema may also state the order in which some elements must occur. It may also state which elements may contain other elements. Are my assumptions correct? I know that you can mix RDF documents but my concern is that it will be difficult to process the EARL as XML because I won't know where things are. For example, the file that passed or failed a guideline will always be marked like: <earl:WebContent rdf:about="#subject"> <earl:reprOf rdf:resource="URI to the file"/> </earl:WebContent> Is that right? Cheers, Chris
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 08:16:35 UTC