Re: comment on section 2.6.1 of EARL Schema

No further comment.

We seem to be managing to effectively use EARL in GRDDL WG.

If once you have assessed your LC comments, you are mindful to move 
forward to CR or PR then you might want to consider requesting an 
implementation report from GRDDL WG; not that we have used many of the 
features.

Jeremy


Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> Thank you for providing these comments, they have been recorded here:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues>
> 
> Please let us know if you have further input, we will be processing
> these comments in the coming weeks.
> 
> Regards,
>   Shadi
> 
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I read at

>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-EARL10-Schema-20070323/#outcomevalue
>> [[
>> (or subclasses of them)
>> ]]
>> (end of first para of section)
>>
>> This does not make sense: the values are not classes.
>>
>> I suggest deleting that text.
>>
>> ==
>> Background: (not part of formal comment)
>>
>> I am using EARL to produce test reports for GRDDL tests.
>> My software being tested occasionally crashes :(
>>
>> I report:
>>    earl:pass and earl:fail as appropriate,
>> and also earl:notApplicable (because some of the GRDDL tests come in 
>> groups which require only one test to be passed)
>>
>> I was thinking that there might be an appropriate code, e.g. 
>> earl:disaster, for reporting that my software crashed during the test.
>> There isn't. And for the purposes of testing, I guess the distinction 
>> between earl:disaster and earl:fail is not important. So, if there was 
>> a useful mechanism for extending earl:fail then I might use it. As is, 
>> EARL allows me to add my own comment (e.g. earl:info) to the 
>> earl:TestResult, so I don't see any need to suggest any other changes.
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 10:38:40 UTC