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

Re: Questions and proposals related to strawman schema from F2F

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:30:35 +0100 (BST)
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0209222318310.1297-100000@jarl.webthing.com>

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Oh. I had a different understanding, which was that a heuristic result was
> one which was derived, rather than directly tested.

Hmmm .. I can live with that.

I didn't really have any understanding of it; I just didn't feel happy
with the distinction Wendy appeared to be making.

Anyway, this thread has confirmed her other point: if we're that unclear
on what it means, then it's not really very useful.

> So if you tested against something automatically (with a tool) you could
> assert that. If you had some results that implied another result, (for
> example a set of results for the collection of tests you have for checkpoint
> 1.1) then you would assert conformance, but heuristically.

So in effect, a heuristic test outcome becomes a target for "make" or
equivalent, aggregating other tests.  Corollary: a definition language
for heuristic tests could be expressed using Makefile rules.

Nick Kew
Received on Sunday, 22 September 2002 18:30:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:34 UTC