W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > January 2009

RE: Test samples review status

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:32:07 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "TSDTF" <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>

Hi Carlos, All,

Below are responses to all of the issues, based on the discussion 
during the telecon.

At 02:11 27/01/2009, Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> > >01 - There are concerns about the effectiveness of the test samples
> > >(the use of a blockquote is not obvious)
> > >02 - Concerns about quote visibility (quotes not visible in IE)
> > >03 - The related technique (F2) has been changed, but still doesn't
> > >relate to the test sample
> > >04 - Concerns about quote visibility (quotes not visible in IE)
> >
> > My understanding of the status of test samples
> > content-structure-separation-programmatic_001
> > through 004 was that I made edits, reported at
> > 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Oct/0006.html>,
> > to address earlier issues,
> > and that we later needed to check if the technique references
> > were still OK after CR publication.
> > Tim did this for these samples and also wrote that my earlier
> > edits seemed fine:
> > 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Nov/0014.html>.
>Still think that F2 is not applicable to 03 because no there is not
>change in the appearance of text that conveys meaning without using
>appropriate semantic markup (I think that in this test sample is rather
>the other way around)

What 003 wants to illustrate is the use of a Q element for something 
that is not a quote but only for the visual rendering of the Q 
element, which is not consistent across browsers.
The current test file,
should display the Q element italicized.
Internet Explorer 6, Opera 9, SeaMonkey 1.1, Firefox 2.0, Firefox 1.5 
and Firefox 3.0 display the Q element as normal text (i.e. not 
italicized, bold, or in a different colour. Except for Internet 
Explorer 6, all these browsers display quote marks by default.
The addition of a style attribute to the Q element makes sure that 
all the above browsers, including IE6, change the appearance of the Q 
element. So we have a test file where CSS is used to emphasize a 
phrase visuaally without conveying that emphasis semantically, as in 
failure example 3 in
So why would F2 not apply to this test sample?

>Nothing to say about the rest of test samples if Tim has previously
>agreed with the changes

OK, thanks.

> > >16 - OK
> > >18 - OK
> > >19 - OK
> > >26 - There are no changes to this test sample.
> > >The issues raised in the CR are still applicable
> >
> > The metadata were modified (more precise title, description
> > and purpose), but not the sample file.
> > I assume you are proposing to change this from a pass to a
> > fail based on your argument that summary attributes on layout
> > tables are not prohibited.
> > However, there is a failure F46 (referenced by the metadata):
> > "Failure of Success Criterion
> > 1.3.1 due to using th elements, caption elements, or
> > non-empty summary attributes in layout tables"
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F46.html>
>Extract from F46: "Empty summary attributes are acceptable on layout
>tables, but not recommended."

Indeed, *empty* summary attributes on layout tables don't cause a failure,
but the summary attribute in 026 was never empty (I checked CVS history).
Please check the source code of
If you think that F46 still does not apply, can you please explain why.

> > >30 - Issues raised in the CR has not been addressed
> >
> > I propose the following change to address the issue:
> > - add a column for the courses for which the students have
> > enrolled (more "realistic" table),
> > - change the summary to: "This table list students with their
> > student ID and the course for which they have enrolled.
> > Students are listed alphabetically by family name."

This change was accepted in today's teleconference;
the test file has been modified accordingly.

> > >36 - One file don't follow the naming
> > >conventions (not sure what the comment about the form
> > submission means)
> >
> > We have a number of test samples with forms that may be
> > submitted but where we don't want users to land on an "Error
> > 404", so we have dummy pages where the form submission
> > "lands" and that aren't really part of the test case.
>Not sure if they can be considered part of the test case or not, but
>anyway think they should follow the same naming conventions

This was discussed during the telecon.
The xxx_processformdummy.html files have been renamed to conform
to the naming convention.

> > Where
> > did you find that comment?
>SR (Checks for test files)

The form submission issue has been fixed.
There is now a dummy submission page that conforms to the naming convention.

> >
> > >37 - OK
> > >41 - There are no changes to this test sample.
> > >The issues raised in the SR are still applicable
> >
> > See comment on 036. To conform to the naming convention, all
> > files ending on "_processformdummy.html" need to be renamed.

Done. (Cf. supra.)

Best regards,


> >
>  CI.

Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 16:32:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:02 UTC