- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:20:59 -0500
- To: "Carlos Iglesias" <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:00:48 -0500, Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote: >> A. Use the existing WebContent class even though this is not >> information on the Web. >> B. Develop a new FileContent class that contains optional properties to >> record... >> C. Use the filename as the URI of a TestSubject class >> What do people think of these proposals? Are there other proposals? I think that the best approach is to extend the WebContent class, so that it can record content that is not available on the Web such as files. It should then be capable of giving all the information you want - but you will need something to note that it is not generally available. I think the identifier for such a file *should* still be an http: URI (or a URN, but I think that is a vastly inferior option) to allow for recording relevant information in more than one place, since file: URIs are valid identifiers but likely to be really bad at providing uniqueness, and since you may not want to reveal the filepath of the document for many good reasons) Which is a m ix of options A and B. I think C is a bad idea. The alternative would be to use something like FRBR or Dublin Core in a more extensive way to identify the resource. Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 21:21:20 UTC