- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:40:09 +0200
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi,
Nick Kew wrote:
> johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de wrote:
>
>>Nick wrote:
>>
>>>We may EITHER
>>>record { URL } OR equivalently { Connection, Request Line }
>>>I'll discuss the structure on the basis of the latter, but
>>>I expect people may prefer the former.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>> * MUST record the URL and/or connection+request line
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Request and Response entities are outside the scope of this note.
>>
>>IMHO it is not sufficient to record the URL because it does not contain
>>the HTTP method. A resource can also be requested via the POST method and
>>can vary with parameters sent in the request entity.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I'm excluding that case, because it seems to me the whole discussion
> is too far from dealing with the case of *applications*. To deal
> meaningfully with POST, we have to be evaluating the entire application,
> not just a results page in isolation. And we're a very long way
> from describing that.
A simple example: An HTML form is submitted using POST and returns content according to the specific form field values. It seems to me useful to record all the parameters sent to the server in order to regenerate receive the same content from the server. Would something like the structure below work for our usage?
<earl:request about="{protocol}://{server}[/location][?parameters]">
<earl:request-parameter about="{value-pair}"\>
....
</earl:request>
Regards,
Shadi
--
Shadi Abou-Zahra, Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), http://www.w3.org/
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/
IST WAI-TIES Project (WAI-TIES) http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/
Evaluation and Repair Tools (ERT WG), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
2004, Route des Lucioles BP93 - 06560 Sophia-Antipolis - France
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 13:43:57 UTC