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

First pass on EARL Guide

From: Michael A Squillace <masquill@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:40:07 -0500
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBF5762E8.46503EC6-ON85257627.004C82EB-86257627.00668FBF@us.ibm.com>


I have uploaded a first pass with editorial changes to the EARL 1.0 Guide (
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Guide-20090723/). Notice that this is
the same version that Shadi uploaded back in July (i.e. I did not create a
new document). Carlos, I apologize in advance for removing the
word-wrapping that your editor produced but it made it very difficult to
read the markup because it broke up elements in odd places and made it
extremely difficult to determine where paragraphs were beginning and ending
in the markup.  It also placed line breaks in <pre> elements where they
probably did not belong. I tried, so far as possible, to make the markup
consistent with our other documents.

Things to review:
1. reworded 2nd and 3rd objectives in section 1
2. In 2nd example in section 3.1, the XHTML example does not contain any
<li> or <img> elements so the errors to be found do not make sense
3. might want to underscore in the text the main differences between code
in examples 3.18 and 3.19, english and spanish representations as well as
resulting reports for each (3.21 and 3.22)

Questions for the group:
1. Towards the end of section 2, "However, this original aim has been
expanded to cover wider testing scenarios." What testing scenarios did we
have in mind? No examples given.
2. aggregation = "merging different sets of test results on the same
subject"; this is not in accordance of what we agreed to as aggregation,
which was simply the combination of different portions of EARL reports into
one report or of the results of several reports into one report
3. standard boiler plate about rfc 2119 is just dangling at end of section
2; better place for it?
4. Beginning of Section 3 lists vocabularies upon which EARL depends and
lists HTTP in RDF, Content in RDF, Pointers in RDF. These three are part of
EARL, not vocabularies upon which it depend, so I wonder if these should be
referenced separately as part of the EARL vocabulary itself.

--> Mike Squillace
IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center


External: http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal: http://w3.ibm.com/able
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 18:40:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:58 UTC