RE: Revisiting EARL for Validation

[cross post]

while i agree that the specific error messages are tool specific and may
need to be handled separately, i disagree that the validation should be
reduced to a mere yes / no statement (which is what i understood from
your mail).

actually i believe that the errors should be bound even more tightly to
the respective checkpoints in order to be able to sort them according to
the priority. maybe more accurate conformance level claims can be
achieved this way too.

regards,
  shadi


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nick Kew
> Sent: Dienstag, 11. März 2003 23:08
> To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org; www-validator@w3.org
> Subject: Revisiting EARL for Validation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ Note crosspost ]
> 
> I'm making major revisions to Page Valet.
> 
> Part of this is a review of the EARL output option.  It seems to me
> that the existing use of EARL in validation is something of a 
> mismatch.
> 
> Basically, the validator is making exactly one assertion: that a
> page is or isn't valid (passes or fails the test of being valid
> markup).  Individual error messages are not really meaningful as
> EARL assertions: defining the testsubject for them has always been
> problematic, and repeating "fails" for each assertion is artificial.
> 
> My current thinking is that the validator should make exactly
> one EARL assertion, and that the individual messages should be
> attached as qualifiers.  They will then fall outside the EARL
> vocabulary, but that's IMO preferable to shoehorning it.
> 
> So we have something like
> 
> <rdf:RDF>
> 
> <Assertor rdf:ID="validator">
>   bla bla bla
> </Assertor>
> 
> <Assertion rdf:ID="validation">
> <!-- standard EARL-ish stuff something like -->
>   <Subject... (the page)>
>   <Date ...>
>   <TestCase .. (isvalid)>
>   <Result ... (pass|fail)
>   <assertedBy ... (validator)>
>   <note> (whatever) </note>
> 
> 
> <!-- and actual errors if any, in their own namespace -->
>   <val:error rdf:resource="#err1"/>
>    ....
> </Assertion>
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="err1">
>   <val:line>4</val:line>
>   <val:char>52</val:char>
>   <val:message>You can't do that here!</val:message>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> 
> Does this make sense?  Any thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Nick Kew
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 17:27:31 UTC