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

validity levels

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:32:08 +0200
Message-ID: <453729F8.3090404@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: ERT group <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

Hi group,

I thought some moments about the validity levels we currently have in 
EARL (pass, fail, cannotTell, notApplicable, notTested). There may be a 
need for another level.

E.g. there are tools like the W3C CSS validator that produce warnings 
that do not really effect the overall outcome. If there are no errors, 
but only warnings, a CSS resource PASSes validation.

Now, how to represent these warnings in EARL? Should we use earl:pass? 
Then how to distinguish between real pass assertions and warnings? 
Should we use earl:cannotTell? IMHO this isn't appropriate either 
because cannotTell means, the "Assertor can not tell for sure what the 
outcome of the test is".

-- 
Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE)
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 07:32:30 GMT

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