W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft

From: Evangelos Vlachogiannis <evlach@aegean.gr>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:12:24 +0300
Message-ID: <4635C108.7050205@aegean.gr>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
CC: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, shuaib <skarim@ifs.tuwien.ac.at>, public-wai-ert@w3.org


I think that the context of testing is very important and it is not very 
clear to me. I might missing something...

My understanding on this says that the context of use is covered by the 
HTTP headers (HTTP Vocabulary in RDF). I was wondering if this is an 
adequate mechanism to cover all kind of contexts. From my little 
experience the context that is delivered through HTTP is very limited 
and EARL should not be restricted to that. Testing context IMO should 
allow for more... having that, earl could also be used for building 
adaptive web. Maybe CC/PP is also suitable here. Now, regarding the 
place that that should appear I was thinking about Test Subject...

just some thoughts..

BTW I have notice a couple of typos in Appendix B ->Properties table -> 
last 2 rows (Recmmended)


Evangelos Vlachogiannis
Researcher - University of the Aegean
Contact&More: http://www.syros.aegean.gr/users/evlach/contactme.php

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> Shuaib suggested:
> 5.    Some accessibility tests can be dependant on various factors such as
> location or device. In other words the Outcome Value may be due to one or
> more of those factors. It would be beneficial to capture these context
> elements. Therefore, earl:context may also include the device
> (http:Resource), because the tests / test results may also vary with
> different devices. In that case, would it make sense to place “context”
> outside of earl:content too?
> Hmmm. I think the context is not very well described. It is actually "information about what content was tested" - the HTTP settings, or similar (including anything like particular devices or environmental conditions, although we don't have a vocabulary for those like we do for HTTP - we could use an RDF-ised version of WURFL/WALL for devices, ...). It is an integral part of the Content, and may in fact be all that we know, so I think it does belong where it is.
> But we should explain it better. I don't have a good concrete suggestion yet :(
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 10:13:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:55 UTC