Re: earl message

> I wish I had done Schema validation, or that we had OWL constraints...
>
Yes, a schema to validate against is really needed. I hope we can get a 
rough draft together soon.

> It makes sense to me that the message is a property of the Assertion, not 
> the result.
>
This makes sense to me although I think the message should be optional.

Nils wrote:
> 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 agree.

Regards,
Chris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
To: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:34 PM
Subject: earl message


>
> 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
>
> -- 
> Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
> charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:40:14 UTC