W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > October 2000

Re: Evaluation Results In XML

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:42:12 -0400
Message-Id: <200010232121.RAA1513644@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
At 11:51 AM 2000-10-23 -0400, you wrote:
>We have been working on a means of storing the accessibility evaluation of
>an HTML document. Our current approach is to store the evaluation in an XML
>document. The XML doc contains the original HTML with any accessibility
>problems marked with new XML elements. For example, the following snippet
>contains the evaluation of an IMG element that is missing the 'alt'
>attribute:
>
><problem problemName="MISSING_IMG_ALTTEXT" problemID="1234">
><![CDATA[ <img src="rex.jpg" longdesc="rex-desc.html">]]>
></problem>

What do you propose to do when the sections of original-HTML hypertext that
give rise to the problem assertions overlap?

Did you consider using X-Path to mark ranges in the source, and leave the
source in a separate file?  [You would have to first tidy the HTML into XHTML
1.0 so the X-Paths are well posed, but that works, doesn't it (I mean tidy)?]

Did you consider using RDF for the problem assertions?

If we are going to interleave problems and original content in one XML
document, why not use namespaces to distinguish them, as opposed to burying
proper hypertext in PCDATA inlines?

>
>The XML file that contains the above evaluation is attached to this message.
>
>Each accessibility problem is given a code number so it may be referenced.
>

This is not sustainable.  Use URI references to AERT clauses, using an URL for
the AERT which is specfic to a dated version thereof.

The early points are aesthetic, questions of highest-and-best use of XML.

The final point [URI-references for identification of the problem] is a must. 
I would want three good reasons before I fought this one all the way to the
Director's desk.  This is in Tim's eyes the capstone principle of the Web. 
You
don't take the dictionary of error cases private by using an opaque, private
numbering scheme where there is a Web-compatible means to identify them by
reference to the WAI utterance where they are authoritatively defined.

Al

>A report tool can take the XML document and prepare a report of
>accessibility problems.
>
>A repair tool can take the entire document, or pieces of the document, make
>repairs then update the original XML document.
>
>The original XML document can be easily converted back to HTML by XSLT or a
>simple program.
>
>If the group can agree on a set of specifications then all tool makers can
>generate and use the same XML evaluation document.
>
>Comments?
>
>Chris
>
>
>  
Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 17:16:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:31 UTC