W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > December 2002

EARL 1.0 WD published. Updated list of issues.

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 18:00:21 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021206173738.0475eb30@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

Hello everyone,

The first EARL 1.0 Working Draft was published 
today.  http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/

Please read and comment on the various "Editor's notes" throughout the draft.

There is still work to do before this can be published as a W3C 
Note.   Looking back at the questions and issues that were raised in august 
[1]:

1. severity
Not incorporated into the schema but used as an example extension.

2. repairInfo, expectedResult, suspectAgainst.
Did not have support. Nothing added to the schema.

3. operator, operatorInstructions, purpose.
Did not have support. Nothing added to the schema.

4. testmode
Had support and was included as a class, a property, and instances of the 
property.

5. TestCriteria,  suite, level, excludes.  OPEN ISSUE.
This had some support but some felt it was going too far in the direction 
of a test point description language.

6. os, version. OPEN ISSUE.
We agreed there is no unique way to identify a UA (i.e., URIs for each UA 
don't exist).  Thus, I still think these are needed to help uniquely 
identify UAs.

7. snapshot.
Did not have support. Nothing added to the schema.

8. date.  TO DO.
Agreed to use DC:date, but it's not explained in the spec nor is there any 
representation in the schema.

9. Uniquely identifying pieces of content. OPEN ISSUE.
The draft says nothing about how to handle changes to content identified by 
an xpath that changes and breaks the xpath.  I still think this is 
something that needs to handled separately (i.e., i don't think we want to 
propose a solution in the EARL 1.0 spec itself) I do think we need to raise 
awareness of the problem and pose possible solutions
(e.g., 1. if a repair tool: add a unique id to each element you annotate,
OR 2. use hashes to help determine what changed,
OR 3. if interactive: ask the user to confirm that the element being 
referred to is correct, etc etc).

I would like to send a request for review to the RDFIG, the annotations 
list (www-annotation), and the QAWG.  Are  there other groups that we ought 
to send this to?

Thanks,
--wendy

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2002Aug/0007.html

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 17:56:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:41 GMT