W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Reviewing SpecName

From: Evangelos Vlachogiannis <evlach@aegean.gr>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:21:00 +0300
Message-ID: <4614954C.7040905@aegean.gr>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi all,

Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
>
> Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>>
>> At 20:08 3/04/2007, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>> After re-reading the checklist for content review, I wonder if we 
>>> should say something about the usage of SpecName in the metadata. 
>>> The SpecName technologies in there should really match the intention 
>>> (or references) of the respective WCAG 2.0 Technique.
>>>
>>> Any objections? Any wording suggestions?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
>> Is this related to the applicability section in the WCAG 2.0 
>> techniques and failures? I.e. do you mean that the content review 
>> should check that technologies in the test sample (or at least the 
>> technology in which the technique or failure can be highlighted) is 
>> also in the applicability section? (Or rather the other way around?)
>
> For example, the test sample "sc1.3.1_l1_018" applies to (X)HTML. What 
> happens if the SpecName attribute (wrongly) refers to CSS instead? 
> This must be checked...
I agree this is important to add. But I was wondering if this should go 
under Structure Review (metadata) instead of Content review. Or, have we 
already included that by "All titles, descriptions, and other required 
fields are included and accurate"? Does "accurate" refers to syntax 
validity or to the content? In case we refer to the content we probably 
have already included that. (??)

BTW just noticed a typo under Content review->consistent: technqiue(s)

regards,
Vangelis

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelos Vlachogiannis
Researcher - PhD. Candidate
Contact: http://www.syros.aegean.gr/users/evlach/contactme.php
--------------------------------------------------------------- 
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 06:20:55 GMT

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