W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > October 2005

Re: [Fwd: EARL requirements 1st WD]

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:14:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4342804C.1020307@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Jeremy,

We appreciate your comments and invite you to comment on the EARL 1.0 Schema [1] document too if your time allows. We will consider and address comments received as we continue to develop EARL.

BTW, you will need to register to the ERT WG mailing list [2] to be able to participate in the online discussions.

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-EARL10-Schema-20050909/>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/participation#subscribing>

Regards,
  Shadi


Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> Process point - I am happy for these comments not to be addressed, they 
> are intended as potentially helpful, rather than constraining. (& also 
> to indicate that someone has read the document!)
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> 
>> Dear Group,
>>
>> Please find a review of the EARL Requirements WD from Jeremy Carroll 
>> below.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Shadi
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [Moderator Action] EARL requirements 1st WD
>> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:28:44 +0000
>> From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>> To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
>> CC: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a review of
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-EARL10-Requirements-20050711/
>>
>> This is a personal review, made in response to a request from the 
>> SWBPD WG, in response to a request from ERT WG.
>>
>> Substantively:
>>
>> [[
>> F02
>>    EARL 1.0 will provide mechanisms to relate test results with the
>> specific location within the subject that triggered the result where
>> applicable.
>> ]]
>>  I suggest that requirement F02 should be demoted from "will" to
>> "should". This is a complex requirement that would be good to meet,
>> however I do not believe that EARL would have failed if this requirement
>> cannot be met, so the lower status of "should" is appropriate.
>>
>> Editorially:
>>  I suggest that
>> [[
>> F05
>>    EARL 1.0 may support backward compatibility of the language with
>> previous versions published in earlier Working Drafts.
>> ]]
>>  be listed as a non-requirement, or not listed at all, since the
>> rather particularly definition of may, seems to mean non-requirement.
>>
>>
>> [I assume further prettification comments are not interesting for this
>> document]
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra,     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe 
Chair and Team 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, 4 October 2005 13:15:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:26 GMT