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

Re: Explicit vs Implicit URIs (aka "blanket statements or not")

From: Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 20:44:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4460E329.7000101@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Cc: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos,

Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> Why *not this one*?
> 
> <blockquote> F04: EARL 1.0 will support aggregation of test results
> according to different criteria (for example with respect to the
> subject) </blockquote>
> 
> Aggregation according to the subject --> Aggregated subjects e.g.
> Domain, Subdomain, etc...

When you give a definition of what is your understanding on the topic,
but the DNS definitions are not clear enough on this, i.e.:
- A domain includes all its subdomains?
- We need to worry about top-level-domains, country code top-level
domains, etc.?

In any case, to aggregate, is not the same as to compact.

> ...
> No, they're not included because they are subdomains. This is why the
> proposal [1] includes a "Domain" Scope and a "Subdomain" Scope. If
> you define a "Domain" Scope just example.org is included, if you
> define a "Subdomain" Scope then images.example.org and
> www-inter.example.org are also included.

That is your interpretation of domain. However, [1] is not that
categoric on whether a subdomain is not part of a domain. For others, it
might be so. By the way,
- example.org is a domain, and a subdomain of the TLD .org
- www-inter.example.org is also a domain, and a subdomain of example.org
- example.co.uk is a domain and a subdomain of the ccTLD co.uk

Thus your definition does not hold.

> ...
> You could just record the variables you were using during the
> crawler.

And who does guarantee that your crawler gets all resources? We have
tested several crawlers in big portals (10,000+ resources) and you get
different results with all them (not to mention they run out of memory).
That is why we developed our own anyways ;-)


>>> EXAMPLES: * "example.org/page.html passes WCAG 1.0 CP 1.1" - the
>>> "usual" way of using EARL to record test results will
>> still be
>>> available * "example.org/page.html passes WCAG 1.0 Level A" - a
>>> contraction of individual checkpoints is possible due
>> to the WCAG
>>> hierarchy
>> It depends. There is still an open discussion on TestCase and 
>> TestRequirements. Until that discussion is closed, some of the
>> above examples might not be valid.
> 
> 
> I can't see how the discussion on TestCases and TestRequirements
> affects to the examples above. Could you elaborate?

Well, simply is EARL reporting *test results*, which lead to some
compliance with some given requirement (e.g., WCAG 2.0), or directly
compliance with the requirement? This issue is still open in my
understanding.

> I think we shouldn't focus on covering conformance claims needs, but
> I don't see any problem if, as a result of our work in other areas,
> EARL is also useful to express conformance claims.

I do see a problem, though ;-) namely, the misuse of EARL.

regards,
carlos

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt
-- 
Dr Carlos A Velasco - http://access.fit.fraunhofer.de/
Fraunhofer-Institut für Angewandte Informationstechnik FIT
  [Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT)]
  Barrierefreie Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie für Alle
  Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
  Tel: +49-2241-142609 Fax: +49-2241-1442609
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 18:47:00 GMT

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