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

RE: Editor's draft comments

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:33 +0100
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281901E7E336@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

> > A mixed result implies a combination of persons AND tools
> Combination of persons and/or tools. It is actually unknown, 
> it could be humans only, tools only, or other combinations.

Right now there is an *AND* in the prose, not *AND/OR*
If it really means completely unknown then I think that "unknow" is the best label for it.

> > so just an Organization assertor can't give way to a mixed 
> result unless the general thinking is that an Organization 
> Assertor could also implicitly include Software tools, is 
> this the general thinking?
> No, and organisation could also carry out purely manual testing. The 
> report *may* disclose the mode in which the organisation 
> carried out the 
> tests (manual, automatic, semiauto, etc) or it may just say "mixed".
> > Make sense, nevertheless I think that, with the exception 
> of the heuristic mode, there are certain rules that restrict 
> the correct usage of Assertors/results combinations. (e.g the 
> main Assertor in a semiauto result can't be a Person, etc.)
> Yes, there are probably such implicit restrictions. In other words, 
> combinations that don't make sense as you highlight above. Do 
> we want to 
> make these restrictions explicit? Not sure about the benefit vs 
> complexity in going down this road...

Maybe the guide is the place for it.


Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain 

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:25:31 UTC

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