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

Compound Locations

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:10:57 +0100
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Message-Id: <200509210210.59022.nick@webthing.com>

In todays call, we discussed compound locations.  I have to express some
scepticism over how much we can reasonably hope to do in EARL.

I have no problem with the simple case:

     [one or more *instance of* location where the assertion applies]
     [ e.g. here's a bunch of IMGs that each need ALTs ]

But the compound case is more problematic.  We discussed a few
examples where an assertion might refer to more than one location,
but I think those are rather contrived (e.g. a bunch of unseparated
links is more natural to refer to as a single instance - the surrounding
container - than each for itself).

Most problematic is the fact that *related* links implies a *relationship*.
If we are to embrace the concept of a compound location, we have to
be able to express that relationship.  And that's a whole new can of
worms.  If Tool A (eg APrompt) expresses a location comprising more
than one point in the testsubject, how is Tool B (eg Valet) to infer
anything more meaningful than an _unstructured_ list from that?

There are a couple of simple cases we can perhaps express:
* Range (Start-point + End-point)
* Main+subsidiary locations

But I think anything more complex has to be tool-specific.

I've also just created a trivial case for discussion.  A document with a
validation error that appears in one place but refers back to another.
See how the online validators all deal differently with it:


Nick Kew
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2005 01:11:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:53 UTC