- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:03:52 +0100
- To: public-earl10-comments@w3.org
This is feedback on the following drafts in generic form, not tied to a particular version with the exception of one detail noted further below: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10-Guide/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP-in-RDF/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Content-in-RDF/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Pointers-in-RDF/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10-Requirements/ According to the ERT WG timeline: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/timeline All of these documents are intended to become W3C WG Notes, rather than Recommendations. There is one specific error in the documentation in the fact that the Abstract of the Guide: Developer Guide for Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 W3C Editors Draft 27 April 2011 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Guide-20110427 Says in fact that it is “intended to be published and maintained as a W3C Recommendation after review and refinement”. I'm not sure whether the group's timeline or the Guide's own documentation is more accurate, but I would suspect the Guide. At any rate, I am not sure why these are intended for publication as notes rather than recommendations. It seems to me that the HTTP in RDF, Content in RDF, and Pointers in RDF documents especially are in a sense the meat of the EARL work. In other words EARL distinguishes itself by being a kind of modular language whose major modules are strongly oriented towards accessibility evaluation. The Schema is the work that these modules plug in to, and though this means that the underlying schema needs to be of very strong foundation, it also means that it is going to be quite simple as a data model (or should be, though you wouldn't know that from the requirements document). The modules can and should, on the other hand, be quite major pieces of work. But we find instead that the Schema is going to recommendation, and possibly the guide, but not the modules. This doesn't make sense, and I would urge the group to put this up for review. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 11:30:52 UTC