Re: EARL and locating a problem...

So how about we create a property occursAt which can useXpointer,
line/character offset, element/attribute name (or should we just do that as
Xpointer or xpath). It seems from the discussion in Bristol that we would
also need to identify a normalisation algorithm if one was used - i.e. unless
this is derived from a tool that doesn't touch the source code...

The next trick would be to work out how to make these interoperate and find
the same place using two or three different tools. Outside Xpointer I guess
this will be tricky... (does anyone know what Amaya  does if you annotate an
HTML document?)

cheers

Chaals

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Jim Ley wrote:

>
>"Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
>> Well, I agree that EARL could liv without a pointer, but in practice any
>> repair tool using EARL is going to require this information.
>
>I think we're in agreement really, We need to define a pointer to parts of
>HTML (and other ML) documents, Nick's fuzzy pointers and hashes and other
>approaches (real xpointer, and simple line/column) do that, so we need to
>describe these.  Once described they can happily hang off both testSubject
>and resultProperty without problem as I see it.
>
>Will they be in the EARL namespace?  Or is this another area we also want
>to describe, which can be extended seperately to the EARL.
>
>> If on the other hand we have a property on the result property, then
>toolB
>> can look for that relatively easily, declare that problem X has been
>> repaired, and the merged results
>>
>> (page Y failed test X at time 1 in locations P,Q,R) and (page Y passed
>test X
>> at time 2 in locations P,Q)
>>
>> give us a new result for page Y at much lower cost than merging a large
>> collection of partial objects and how they combine to form page Y.
>
>I'm not completely sure I agree with this analysis, if you can divide the
>page in to atoms, and say an atom has failed and then been repaired it's
>pretty much the same cost, we're just describing the atom at different
>points.  I think it depends on how much you see PASSED being used - to me
>it's a rarity in HTML page repair, where what we really want to know is
>has the suite passed (none of the tests failed) and how we can repair each
>fail so as I see it you'll only get FAILS being created in which case it
>is the same cost if the pointers are in testSubject or resultProperty.
>
>I certainly have no problem with resultProperty having a occurringAt or
>similar.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jim.
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2002 19:50:51 UTC