- From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 03:00:48 +0200
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190E7DCE@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
Hi group, >During last week's teleconference we started to discuss the issue of describing test subjects that are local files. There are two >specific issues to consider in this: > >1. How to identify the test subject uniquely (a filename may not be unique outside the local context) >2. Is it necessary to have a mechanism to record the contents of the files? If so, how would the mechanism look like? > >The following proposals have been raised: > >A. Use the existing WebContent class even though this is not information on the Web. This would also imply changing the >description of the class in the spec as well as changing the domain of the http:body property so that it can be used for local >files. > >B. Develop a new FileContent class that contains optional properties to record the file name, its contents, as well as other >properties that we may consider. So really a custom class for local files as we did for Web content. > >C. Use the filename as the URI of a TestSubject class (neglecting that this may not be unique outside the local context), and >forget about recording the actual contents of the files. > >What do people think of these proposals? Are there other proposals? My favourite is the B option, using the file://whatever as the URI and incorporating some way to include the content (or at least keeping it in mind for an easy later extensibility). I think there are enough differences to justify a new specialization of the TestSubject. Can live with the A option and don't like C option at all. Regards, CI.
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 01:01:10 UTC