W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > December 2006

RE: [ACTION] Warnings in EARL

From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:14:16 -0000
To: "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20061205191417.0FD7D124AF5B2@postie1.hosting365.ie>

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wai-ert-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra

And as to mobileOK, the WARN seems to be a result just like a PASS or 
FAIL not an additional flag as proposed by CarlosI (however, it seems to 
be a kind of PASS too). They also define exactly when the WARN result 
should be issued by using pseudo code for each test. In WCAG we don't 
have a clear definition of when warnings should be issued so this may 
lead to tool developers misusing warning results to satisfy the users 
who don't like to see errors.

[PW] According to the last conversation re mobileOK (or at least from what I
can remember, David Rooks?), a WARN would be a result just like PASS or
FAIL, not an additional flag.

>> It seems we still need a compelling example of a real warning in the 
>> context of EARL. We often talked about warning to describe situations 
>> such as "nearly-passed" or "could-do-better".
> 
> What is "nearly-passed"? A cannotTell?

That is exactly the problem! ;) ..."nearly-passed" could just as well be 
a fail. For example, "if you just close that one tag your document would 
validate but right now it is invalid" result.

[PW] Huh? Nearly pass = fail, i.e. it didn't pass. Sometimes you need to be
black and white and move on.

Kind regards,
Paul 
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 19:14:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT