Re: earl message

Hi Charles,

Since EARL never formally reached an accepted 1.0 state, but several
companies has used is as such, we may have to live with these
inconsistencies for some time.

Describing OWL constraints for EARL seems like a good idea for me, and
may be used as an argument for a major step in release number.

Therefore, I also think that the EARL version we are hammering out
should change major revision to 2.0, to indicate that it is
substantially different.

I am not sure, though, that the message should be a property of the
Assertion, since the assertion should be quite general and defined by
e.g. a WCAG checkpoint. An implementation of that checkpoint is probably
far more fine-grained than the checkpoint itself, and the message may be
used to convey more information about why the test took the decision it
took.

Maybe an example would help, if I misunderstood your point?

Regards,
Nils

tir, 26,.04.2005 kl. 02.34 +0200, skrev Charles McCathieNevile:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I wish I had done Schema validation, or that we had OWL constraints  
> descrbed for EARL. I have just realised that the message is meant to be a  
> property of the result, not the Assertion. Which means that Hera's  
> implementation is wrong, and a fair bit of other stuff too I suspect.
> 
> It makes sense to me that the message is a property of the Assertion, not  
> the result. But I'm not making the spec up myself. Do people think we  
> should relax the domain of earl:message, or should I start chasing down  
> implementations and get them to do the right thing by the spec?
> 
> (As far as I know, nobody has implemented correct EARL code according to  
> the spec, so we could version the problem out of the way. Or we could just  
> fix the implementations and documentation we have)
> 
> what do people think?
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
-- 
Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no>

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2005 03:54:38 UTC