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

RE: sc2.5.1_l1_003 step 2: Structure review

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:42:36 +0100
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070112122554.02eecce0@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>

Hi Carlos,

At 12:16 12/01/2007, Carlos Iglesias wrote:
>Hi Christophe,
>
> > > - There is a technology dependency (JS) in the sc2.5.1_l1_002 test
> > > sample. In this case the related technique is specifically about
> > > client-side validation, so it's quite obvious we should need
> > > client-side technology, but do we need to explicitly say it in the
> > > metadata? (the baseline again)
> >
> > This refers to sc2.5.1_l1_002. In this test case, JavaScript
> > is explicitly excluded in the baseline by means of the second
> > "technicalSpec" element in "technologies".
>
>It reads:
>
><technicalSpec 
>xlink:href="http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm" 
>baseline="included">
>
>So I think it's explicity included in the baseline, not excluded. Isn't it?

Yes, I obviously mistyped that. JavaScript is explicitly included.

> > > - Right now I still don't get the whole ruleset thing for the
> > > objectives of this TF. In the uploaded test cases the rule elements
> > > point to an xml document with a series of rulesets. I think
> > we should
> > > think about restricting these pointers to direct WCAG2 references.
> >
> > The rulesets XML document was created because not all
> > accessibility requirements documents (or at least their
> > normative versions) are in a format that allows pointers into
> > the document (like HTML's fragment identifiers). The rulesets
> > XML provides an ID for each accessibility requirement. It's a
> > kind of adapter or bridge between our metadata and the actual
> > accessibility documents. (If the accessibility document
> > should move to another address, you only need to update the
> > rulesets XML instead of hundreds of test cases.) Of course,
> > WCAG 2.0 is a special case because W3C/cool URLs don't change
> > and WCAG 2.0 contains many fragment identifiers.
>
>This is why I say we should think about restricting these pointers 
>to direct WCAG2 references (URIs) instead to XML documents whithin 
>the TF. I think it would make things easier (review proccess included).

I understand that direct WCAG 2.0 references are easier. We'll put 
this on the agenda for next week.

>(...)
> > > IMO trying to scrutinize the XML directly is quite a rough work. It
> > > may help if we provide a web interface to see the metadata.
> >
> > It becomes easier when you get more familiar with the format
> > but I agree that we will benefit from a web interface.
>
>Some parts could become easier when you get more familiar but 
>others, like creator or rights, not.

We can ease the burden a bit by means of more automated checking.
dc:creator and dc:rights are fixed, so they are easy to check automatically.

Best regards,

Christophe


-- 
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 Friday, 12 January 2007 11:42:47 GMT

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