W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > May 2009

Re: other Requirements document issues

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:10:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4A132062.3090900@w3.org>
To: Michael A Squillace <masquill@us.ibm.com>
CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Mike,

Here my take on things:

Michael A Squillace wrote:
> - date for charter in first sentence of introduction

We need to keep the date of the first Charter under which this work on 
EARL started, and say "it has been rechartered on X.Y.Z" etc. I will 
take care of this (we are still in the process of rechartering).


> - S04 as a 'may' requirement for covering non-web content

I like that.


> - regarding D02, haven't looked at W3c QA guidelines, but is this 
> necessary and how much extra work is it to satisfy?

Yes, it is necessary (unless we can justify why not), and as far as I 
know it isn't any more work (mostly naming conventions and the like). 
However, we should revisit to make sure that we are ok...


> - restatement of D03 (probably a little verbose):
> 
> "The vocabularies defined by EARL 1.0 will provide for test results and 
> reports (collections of results) that can be generated or processed 
> efficiently and in a 
> time that is reasonable relative to the other functions implemented by 
> applications that perform such processing or generation."

Yes, verbose but good. I don't have suggestions for trimming it.


> - what is the scope of work for D07? Is this present in RDF in general?

Mostly we get it for free from RDF but there are cases in which we could 
have locked ourselves in. For instance, if we had been in a situation 
where we would describe the text direction or such. I think that we are 
pretty safe but we need to keep this requirement in.


> - do we need anything at end of specification (e.g. appendicies, reference 
> to documents, etc.)? simply ends with last requirement

Right, the ending is a little abrupt. We could link to the QA, Process, 
or other related resources.


> While your reviewing the document for the call, please consider the 
> restatement of the requirements to refer to a "framework" or set of 
> vocabularies  rather than a single vocabulary

Good point.

Regards,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 21:11:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 May 2009 21:11:33 GMT