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

Re: validity levels

From: David <drooks@segala.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:03:21 +0100
Message-ID: <016001c6f35d$6d9cab90$1b3d900a@PO210018>
To: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "ERT group" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

Sounds like a pretty good case for an earl:warning

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: "ERT group" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:32 AM
Subject: validity levels

> 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 09:03:41 GMT

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