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

Re: Location of 'techniques' in TCDL

From: cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:02:50 +0200
Message-ID: <1161183770.4536421aae5fa@webmail2.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi Shadi, All,

Quoting Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> cstrobbe wrote:
> > Putting 'techniques' inside 'locations' sounds like a 'neither
> > fish, flesh, nor good red herring'-solution
> 
> Now that mention herrings, I don't really understand why techniques
> is 
> not part of the rule set. The thing that the test is testing for is 
> actually the technique, the success criteria is secondary to that. Do
> we need to revisit the schema for rule sets?

If you fail an SC, you fail to conform, but if you fail a technique, 
you can't make a definitive statement on conformance. That's why 
BenToWeb never created "rules" (in rulesets.xml) for techniques but 
only for success criteria. (In an earlier discussion, I believe we 
agreed that this makes sense. [1]) Another advantage of mapping to 
success criteria instead of to techniques and failures is that the 
success criteria document will become stable while the techniques 
document can evolve (which is one reason why the latter is not on 
Recommendation track).

If we turn around our approach and map primarily to techniques/failures 
instead of success criteria, do we also need to revisit the naming 
convention? The resulting test suit would be very useful for developers 
looking for examples of techniques/failures, but as a benchmark for 
ERT, wouldn't it suffer from the lack of a mapping to success criteria?


> > if we care about the 
> > relationship between technique(s) and location(s), why not put 
> > 'techniques' inside 'location'; if we don't care, why not put 
> > 'techniques' outside 'locations' and avoid suggesting a
> relationship 
> > between a specific location and a specific technique? Let's take a
> 
> > clear stance, not something in between.
> 
> Agreed. I for my part care... ;)

Great. 
Any other comments?

Best regards,

Christophe


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/
0027.html

-- 
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
http://www.docarch.be/ 

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 15:03:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:33 GMT