RE: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

 

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-wai-ert-request@w3.org] En nombre de Johannes Koch
> Enviado el: jueves, 31 de marzo de 2005 11:29
> Para: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL
> 
> 
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> >> One problem that I see is: For HTML validity you have strict rules 
> >> that  can be checked automatically. In fact that is what makes up 
> >> validation  (at least in the SGML context): checking 
> against a formal 
> >> grammar, like  a referenced DTD. For the WCAG 
> accessibility levels it 
> >> is not sufficient  to pass an automated test. So the logo 
> could only 
> >> claim "passed XYZ  automated test with no errors".
> > 
> > 
> > No, the way that Hera is designed to work does the sort of thing 
> > Giorgio  is suggesting.
> > 
> > First it runs some automatic tests. Some of these give outright 
> > results,  some are diagnostic. The diagnostic results, plus 
> the tests 
> > that can't be  automated at all (wel, for which we have no 
> automation
> > :-) are used to  guide the user to do manual review. The 
> results are 
> > combined, and this is  used to give an overall result.
> 
> So the EARL report has to be created and linked to the logo. 
> It will not be a link to some on-the-fly test like with 
> HTML/CSS validation.

And so we will have a link to some static EARL report (probably
incomplete and not updated) which doesn't add nothing new compared to
the current static claim text.

Regards,

CI.

Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 14:38:12 UTC