W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > April 2004

RE: EARL Testcase

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:15:09 +0200
To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, "'WAI ER IG List'" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006e01c42315$96c69aa0$6466a8c0@K2>


currently i'm just using this hack for my prototype:

rdf:resource="http://vendor-a.org/tool/tests/#check-for-alt" />


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Ridpath [mailto:chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 20:08
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra; 'WAI ER IG List'
Subject: Re: EARL Testcase

Yes, we need the binding.

Can you suggest a method of binding the tool specific test to the
test suite?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "'WAI ER IG List'"
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:21 PM
Subject: RE: EARL Testcase

> hi chris, hi all,
> this is indeed my problem when trying to construct an "EARL Wrapper
> Tool". how does one aggregate data from different sources?
> my thought is that the best solution would be to have the
> element bind a tool specific testid (for example
> http://vendor-a.org/tool/tests/#check-for-alt) to a testcase of a test
> suite which all sources (tools or humans) in the collection are
> against. in this case it would be for example
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-text-equivalent **.
> when aggregating (or exchanging) the results, one could compare the
> assertions conducted on the testcase (marked by ** in the paragraph
> above) and make more comprehensive statements (for example two tools
> can't tell pass/fail, one tool says it failed, etc). the real tests
> conducted (for example
> become secondary but interesting algorithms could be based on using
> earl:mode and the earl:assertedBy.
> any thoughts on this?
> regards,
>   shadi
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 14:15:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:35 UTC