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

Re: TCDL Draft F

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:34:26 +0200
Message-ID: <45103832.3010801@w3.org>
To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Cc: TSDTF <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>

Hi Christophe,

Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>>> * 'description' now says it was chosen over 'dc:description' because 
>>> of the data type;
>> Again, I think DC allows you to choose a datatype pretty flexibly. I 
>> vote for reusing vocabulary where possible...
>> PS: thanks for explaining that the "purpose" goes beyond the "purpose" 
>> in the techniques!
> Also for dc:description, the data type is xs:string in 
> http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd.
> To solve this "problem" with 'date' and 'description', we should
> * either create our own version of the Dublin Core XML Schema and 
> substitue the data types we want;
> * or use the newer XML Schema 
> (http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2006/01/06/dc.xsd) - which I 
> discovered only today - and derive our own data types from the abstract 
> data type in that schema.

I was actually not aware of this change in the DC schema, and the fact that their XML schema seems significantly different from the RDF one. I strongly recommend the second option but am not sure how that affects compatibility with the BenToWeb TCDL.

>>> * 'requiredTests' will not be used [1];
>> What about "expertGuidance"? How does this relate to "requiredTests" 
>> and/or "techComment"?
> Does the task force want to drop 'expertGuidance'?
> 'requiredTests' are only for end-user evaluation. 'expertGuidance' is 
> guidance for reviewers evaluating the test case (in BenToWeb, it is 
> meant to explain to external users of the test suite how a test can or 
> should be evaluated).

So is the information in the "expertGuidance" an extension to the "test procedure" in the Technique?

>>> * the 'rule' element now has an optional 'techniques' element that 
>>> enables us to point of WCAG 2.0 techniques and/or failures;
>> Hmmm. I agree that this should be optional for a generic test case 
>> description markup. However, in the context of this TF, there should 
>> always be at least 1 WCAG 2.0 Technique that a test sample maps to. 
>> Agreed?
> Do we want to constrain the language so that 'techniques' is mandatory, 
> so that we can't create test case for which there is no technique that 
> we can reference? (I assumed we didn't.)

I can live with a "soft constraint" as well: we don't need to make this constraint in the schema but it should be clear to us that our mission is to develop test samples for existing techniques. I guess this constraint will follow from the internal review process for the test samples anyway...

>> A side question, what is the "id" property and how is it used?
> If you mean "id" on "rule", that is explained in "The rule Element 
> Type", with two examples in "Using rules: Examples". Does this require 
> more guidance?

Not for me, I finally get it.

>>> * there is now a chapter on the "Rulesets XML";
>> ahaaaaa, now I think I understand the "id" property from above. Hmmmm, 
>> this opens the question why the "techniques" element is not inside the 
>> "Rulesets XML" instead of being inside TCDL. Was there a specific 
>> reason for this?
> Well, the techniques documents were too immature when BenToWeb started 
> working on the test suites, and the success criteria are the only 
> normative "rules". If you fail an SC, you fail to conform, but if you 
> fail a technique, you can't make a definitive statement on conformance. 
> So we never add "rules" for techniques.

Yes, this makes very good sense.

>> Also, knowing that you may hate me, more description and examples are 
>> needed for this section. Or maybe a different document all together to 
>> describe this vocabulary?
> Hmm, this is a very simple language, and if we can reuse BenToWeb's 
> rulesets.xml file (which will be updated with newer WCAG drafts), there 
> is only one person who needs to update 'rulesets.xml' (=me).

OK, fair enough.

>> Finally, we will now need to create WCAG 2.0 "rulesets" metadata and 
>> use it in the test metadata, right?
> Or reuse BenToWeb's rulesets.xml...

Can you guarantee that it will not change? All the metadata generated by this group will have a dependency on the rulesets.xml, changes to it could have a huge impact...


Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | 
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ | 
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | 
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | 
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France | 
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 | 
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 18:34:39 UTC

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