Re: Evaluation Results In XML

At 03:34 PM 2000-10-24 -0400, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>Al stated:
>> >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.
>>
>I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the code number. 

AG:: Yes

>The code
>number is only relative to the particular document. It's used to refer to a
>particular problem. For example: A repair tool is fed problem "1234" from
>the evaluation document. The repair tool fixes the problem and returns some
>text and the problem number "1234". The evaluator knows to replace the text
>in problem "1234" with the new text.

AG:: I think it best you use xml:id attributes in this case.

>I think that you may be referring to our problem type attribute (example
>missing_alt_text="yes"). These directly map to the AERT document and we
>could use AERT technique numbers instead of text strings.
>

AG::

That's good, but we should have hard-code machine interpretable identification
(i.e. exact and specific URI-references) for those things.  Compare with the
work on accounting conformance in RDF.  

Al

>Chris
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
>To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
>Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 5:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Evaluation Results In XML
>
>
>> 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 Tuesday, 24 October 2000 16:03:00 UTC