W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > December 2006

sc2.5.1_l1_002 step 2: Structure review

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:48:54 +0100
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190199C24C@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>


Hi group,

As per my action item from the lasT teleconference here we have the structure review (step 2) of the second test sample with some comments 

* contact information of the submitter is available;

Where is supposed to be recorded this information?

* all necessary files are committed and available; OK
* all necessary files follow the naming conventions;

The test samples metadata document specifies that within each technology directory there should be a sub-directory with the files for the actual test sample content and a sub-directory with the files for the metadata.

There is a "testfile" subdirectory for the test sample content and a "metadata" subdirectory for the metadata, but the proposed name in the usage document for the test sample content is "content" instead of "testfile"

Additionally the test sample makes use of embedded scripting, should this have been externalized under a script subdirectory?

* all necessary files are valid in their use;

What is this suppose to mean? Are we talking about grammar validation?

* there are no unintentional broken links; OK
* all the metadata restrictions are applied, for example:
	o dates and other values use the correct format; OK
      o copyright notices and other values are correct;

The version metadata is  $Revision: 1.3 $ but there is a comment in the test sample content that reads $Revision: 1.2 

      o titles, description, and other texts are correct; OK
      o identifiers exist and have the correct syntax; OK
      o techniques and locations are referenced correctly;
	
According to TCDL spec "The locations element type specifies the location or locations where relevant (especially faulty) code occurs..." but it's not clear for me where should the locations point in a pass case, should we restrict locations to faulty use cases in the Metadata Vocabulary?

      o location pointers are consistent with each other; OK, there is only one pointer.

Additionally there is a "requiredTests" element which is not part of the Metadata Vocabulary


Regards,
 CI.

--------------------
Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org 
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 08:49:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:34 GMT