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

Re: updated "usage document", please review

From: cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:26:16 +0100
Message-ID: <1163096776.455372c80f730@webmail2.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi Vangelis, All,

Evangelos Vlachogiannis wrote:
I think it is a good time to also raise an issue here regarding the 
naming convention of "content" as I had described in [1] . Do you think 
this is really an issue?

Shadi Abou-Zahra responded:
Yes, I agree that this is an issue. I was also wondering if there may 
be cases where there needs to be more than one "content" file to carry 
out a test. Hence, maybe the naming convention for the "content" files 
is not really required, the necessary files for a test are indicated in 
the metadata anyway. What do others think?

Referencing more than one test file from TCDL is not a problem (<file> 
is repeatable).
The reuse-versus-duplication issue raised by Vangelis is something 
else. In this original mail [1] he proposed to use a naming convention 
based on IDs of techniques instead of SC numbers. That could work, but 
it would work better if we used the "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" as 
"rules" instead of the success criteria - something that Shadi 
suggested earlier.
This would be different from the approach in BenToWeb and would make 
the mapping from BenToWeb test cases to TSD TF samples more 
complicated, but we should discuss this in the next call. I need to 
think a bit more about the implications also (e.g. rulesets.xml). 


Best regards,


Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 18:26:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:00 UTC