Re: validity levels

I think we need to say that implementors should find their own class as a  
subClass of pass, cannotTell, etc. Different people use different types of  
warning and putting one in is IMHO asking for people to get it wrong,  
break the interoperability, and make it useless - eventually forcing  
implementors to use their own or find one that has been used cleanly and  
is a subtype of... [return to the beginning]

cheers

Chaals

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:03:21 +0200, David <drooks@segala.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>>



-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com          Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 13:17:54 UTC