- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:18:05 +0100
- To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi, Johannes Koch wrote: >> 2. timestamp requests and responses >> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy >> and useful to add dc:date properties to the response/request classes. > > Everyone who needs it can add dc:date properties to request/response. > There's no need for us to allow/disallow it. We are recording an exchange, timestamping the interaction seem to be in the scope of this effort. Do you feel strongly about this? >> 5. normalisation of header field values >> -> need to define some form of convention, even if no transformation is >> done we need to say that somewhere. What convention do we want to use? Any thoughts on this? How do we treat whitespace and caps? >> 5.a. literal representation of the unprocessed headers >> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy >> to add an "http:transcript" property to store the original header text. > > I don't think we need a literal representation of the unprocessed > headers, if the processed representation of the headers is equivalent to > the unprocessed stuff. Equivalent is in the eye of the beholder. I *may* be interested that my server send "aCCept-language" instead of "Accept-language". It would be optional anyway... >> 6. header field exposed in a way that allows easy access via XPATH >> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not, it seems however out >> of scope and not straight forward to do. > > See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Mar/0071.html> > >> 7. two different representations for headers >> -> we need to consider if we want a single mechanism to provide headers >> (see response from Johannes on issue #5 in Jo's comments). > > Or see > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Mar/0071.html> Yes, good approach. We need to refine it though. >> 12. the order of the requests in connection class >> -> need to decide whether (and how) to implement this. We need to >> specify an rdf:Seq list but not sure how to do this in RDFS. > > I'm not sure whether you can do this in RDFS. > > Just use > > <http:request> > <rdf:Seq> > <rdf:li> > <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req1"> > ... > </rdf:Request> > </rdf:li> > <rdf:li> > <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req2"> > ... > </rdf:Request> > </rdf:li> > </rdf:Seq> > </http:request> > > or > > <http:request rdf:parseType="Collection"> > <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req1"> > ... > </rdf:Request> > <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req2"> > ... > </rdf:Request> > </http:request> I prefer the latter. (We should clarify the approach in the text and reflect it in the example too.) Regards, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 21:18:16 UTC