- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:19:46 +0200
- To: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "'ERT group'" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:41:06 +0200, Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > Paul Walsh, Segala schrieb: >> I think these tools are misused, some users assume they can measure >> compliance, this means 'warning' equals 'pass'. Scary! > > That's right. So don't call it warning. Well, sometimes the warning is that you could do better. Sometimes it is something that the test cannot determine. Etc. > But I still see the need for interoperably subclassing the "standard" > validity levels. Sure. To be interoperable you have two options. Require consuming technology to understand RDFS sub-properties and classes, or add both properties. To add both properties, I think you have two kinds of result, which I believe is not what we allow currently. (I am not sure what the logic boffins came up with about whether a result that is duplicated by a subClass of itself is a different kind of result, but that seems intuitively likely...) 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 Thursday, 19 October 2006 15:19:52 UTC