That domain is registered to: Registrant Name:Andy Armstrong Registrant Organization:Hexten Registrant Street1:Bridge End Barn Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Garrigill Registrant State/Province:Cumbria Registrant Postal Code:CA93DR Registrant Country:GB Registrant Phone:+44.01434381641 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:a...@hexten.net
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:34:06PM +0100, Steffen Schwigon wrote: > Hi! > > Just saw this message which I did not see in the testanything nor the > perl-qa lists. The testanything.org wiki is indeed not accessible. Maybe > someone can help. > > Kind regards, > Steffen > > "Bruno P. Kinoshita" <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br> writes: > > Hi all, > > > > For the last three weeks or so, testanything.org has been down. I > > tried pinging the tap mailing list, but got no response. Tried to > > contact Test::More maintainer to see if he knew someone with karma to > > update the web site but got no response so far. > > > > This is the last message I found in my inbox regarding TAP, so I > > apologize beforehand for bothering you all :-) > > > > Does anybody know where I can find one of the testanything.org > > administrators, please? > > > > Thank you in advance, and sorry for the trouble. > > > > All the best, > > > > Bruno P. Kinoshita > > http://kinoshita.eti.br > > http://tupilabs.com > > > > > >>________________________________ > >> From: Steffen Schwigon <s...@renormalist.net> > >>To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be> > >>Cc: t...@ietf.org; Shadi Abou-Zahra <sh...@w3.org> > >>Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 6:25 PM > >>Subject: Re: [tap] W3C Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) > >> > >>Christophe Strobbe <christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be> writes: > >>> Report Language (EARL) and a few related specifications. EARL's core > >>> use case is reporting the results of accessibility evaluations of > >>> websites (i.e. accessibility for persons with disabilities), but the > >>> language itself is generic, so it can also be used in other > >>> contexts. The language is based on RDF; > >>> [???] > >>> During our last call for comments, one of the reviewers asked the > >>> working group if EARL duplicates TAP's efforts, or vice versa. The > >>> working group thinks that this is not the case; we think that EARL > >>> could be an alternative report format for TAP if a TAP consumer could > >>> be written that produces EARL. For this reason, we thought it would be > >>> interesting to contact you and to make sure we are aware of each > >>> other's work. > >> > >>Thanks for sync'ing this back to us. I just skimmed through the specs > >>and it was indeed interesting. As far as I understand from my (very > >>short) skimming I think it's not that many duplication of effort as the > >>main difference is a philosophical one. > >> > >>- EARL is similar to other W3C specs in respect to specifying a > >> comprehensive snapshot of known existing topics. For example, it > >> particularly covers all known HTTP methods (POST, GET, PUT, ???). That > >> enables it to build tools on top of it that sematically ???know??? what > >> the document is about. > >> > >>- TAP in contrast is about specifying test results, really just the > >> *result* focus without hard specification of the tested topic, i.e., a > >> single test has a ???description???, so someone reading it knows what it > >> is about but that part does not have a specification. > >> > >> For instance, a test about a HTTP method could have any description > >> from ???POST??? to ???that strange other method that I never remember but > >> always use when GET is not sufficient???. > >> > >> > >>See [1] for some related discussion of this aspect. > >> > >>In this respect I think TAP is more like your RDF with some extensions > >>from EARL to describe test success. > >> > >>That makes the use-cases of TAP and EARL a bit different: > >> > >>- TAP allows to be produced by anything simple without toolchain > >> support, like embedded devices with nothing but a ???print??? function, > >> but you can not *sematically* evaluate results. > >> > >>- EARL seems to require more heavy toolchain support to produce but > >> allows more semantic result evaluation. > >> > >>Converting TAP to EARL is difficult. > >>Converting EARL to TAP is easy. > >> > >>On the evaluation of TAP I can point to TAP::DOM and Data::DPath, which > >>provide a more structured approach to evaluate test results, see my ???TAP > >>Juggling??? slides[2], page 30ff. > >> > >>Kind regards, > >>Steffen > >> > >> > >>Footnotes: > >>[1] > >>http://grokbase.com/p/perl.org/qa/2008/04/re-tap-l-user-supplied-yaml-diagnostic-keys-descriptive-version/11ymnpm2765ztojoinznq2lz5674 > >> > >>[2] > >>http://www.amd64.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pub/yapc_eu_2011_tapjuggling.pdf > >> > >>-- > >>Steffen Schwigon <s...@renormalist.net> > >>Dresden Perl Mongers <http://dresden-pm.org/> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>tap mailing list > >>t...@ietf.org > >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Steffen Schwigon <s...@renormalist.net> -- Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. . . . . . Karen Etheridge, ka...@etheridge.ca GCS C+++$ USL+++$ P+++$ w--- M++
