W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Requirements for Techniques: Draft 0.2

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:12:14 +1100
Message-ID: <15837.37502.839231.479446@jdc.local>
To: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Here is another round of comments from me.
Michael Cooper writes:
 > 
 > Techniques must be structured in such a way that multiple views can be
 > achieved, including in particular: 
 > 
 > - Checklists
 > 
 > - Test files
 > 
 > - Techniques by conformance level
 > 
 > - Others?
Techniques by technology version and/or implementation status

Unabridged techniques documents (should be inserted after "checklists"
in the above list)
 > 
 > 
 > Techniques should be testable whenever possible and must declare whether
 > they are considered testable. Guidance about testing methods may be
 > provided.
 > 
 > Techniques must [should?] include or link to test cases showing positive and
 > negative implementations of the technique. [This implies the creation of a
 > test suite that exists at a layer below the Techniques layer.]
Some techniques related to the "additional ideas" sections may not be
 > testable, in which circumstances it may not be possible to provide
 > test cases. Perhaps we should say that examples of (positive and,
 > optionally, negative)
 > implementations of the technique must be provided and that if the
 > technique is regarded as testable, these examples must be adequate
 > to serve as test cases.
I wouldn't insist on this change, however, though it does make the
 > requirement a little more precise.
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 21:12:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT