- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:42:59 +0100
- To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi,
The discussions about using the dc or the dct namespace for Dublin
Core metadata terms are essentially about syntax. This brings up the
question: what about bigger variations in syntax?
For example, when I use AccessODF
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/accessodf/> in OpenOffice.org 3.3
and in LibreOffice 3.4.3, the EARL syntax is not the same. The EARL
reports are saved in RDF files inside the ODF files, so it is
possible to extract the reports and compare them.
One thing that is striking is that the dct, earl, foaf and doap
namespace prefixes are nowhere to be seen: you just get ns0, ns1,
etcetera, accompanied by a namespace declaration as in: <ns0:result
xmlns:ns0="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#" ...>.
Another striking thing is the difference in syntax between
LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org. In the RDF from LibreOffice,
everything is completely flattened, like so:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r357">
<ns0:assertedBy xmlns:ns0="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:resource="http://docarch.be/accessibility/ooo/InternalChecker"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r357">
<ns0:subject xmlns:ns0="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r359"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r357">
<ns0:test xmlns:ns0="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:resource="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#E_NoDefaultLanguage"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r357">
<ns0:result xmlns:ns0="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r358"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r357">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#Assertion"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="r1r4520r358">
<ns0:date
xmlns:ns0="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2011-11-23T19:23:49+0100</ns0:date>
</rdf:Description>
(...)
</rdf:RDF>
In OpenOffice.org, it looks a little bit nicer:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<ns1:TestCase xmlns:ns1="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#E_NoDefaultLanguage"/>
<ns2:TestCase xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_FormulaWithoutAlt"/>
<ns3:TestCase xmlns:ns3="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#E_ImageAnchorFloat"/>
<ns4:TestCase xmlns:ns4="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#E_UnsupportedImageFormat"/>
<ns5:TestCase xmlns:ns5="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_ImageWithoutAlt"/>
<ns6:TestCase xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_FakeTable"/>
<ns7:TestCase xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#E_EmptyHeading"/>
<ns8:TestCase xmlns:ns8="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_MergedCells"/>
<ns9:TestCase xmlns:ns9="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_BreakRows"/>
<ns10:TestCase xmlns:ns10="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_FakeHeading"/>
<ns11:TestCase xmlns:ns11="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_NoHyperlinkText"/>
<ns12:TestCase xmlns:ns12="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_JustifiedText"/>
<ns13:Checker
xmlns:ns13="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/"
rdf:about="http://docarch.be/accessibility/ooo/InternalChecker">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#Assertor"/>
</ns13:Checker>
<ns14:TestCase xmlns:ns14="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#"
rdf:about="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#A_SmallText"/>
<ns15:Assertion xmlns:ns15="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#">
<ns15:assertedBy
rdf:resource="http://docarch.be/accessibility/ooo/InternalChecker"/>
<ns15:result>
<ns15:TestResult>
<ns16:date
xmlns:ns16="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2011-11-24T14:23:11+0100</ns16:date>
<ns15:outcome rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#failed"/>
</ns15:TestResult>
</ns15:result>
<ns15:subject>
<ns17:Document
xmlns:ns17="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/types#">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#TestSubject"/>
</ns17:Document>
</ns15:subject>
<ns15:test
rdf:resource="http://www.docarch.be/accessibility-checker/checks#E_NoDefaultLanguage"/>
</ns15:Assertion>
(...)
</rdf:RDF>
We need to be aware of this when thinking about our test suite.
On second thought, I also think this syntax difference provides an
opportunity for the documentation of implementations: the RDF
libraries inside LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org provide different
outputs (syntactically), but appear to be able to read each other's
format (as they should, anyway). You can test this by checking an ODF
document in the first office suite, then saving it (to save the EARL
report), and then opening it in the other office suite, and checking
whether AccessODF displays the same list of errors and warnings in
its UI. I have tested this for the first time, and it works. Maybe we
can use this as evidence for support of both output and input.
Best regards,
Christophe
--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
---
Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project
www.aegis-project.eu
---
Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social
networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 13:43:44 UTC