- From: cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:26:16 +0100
- To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org
Hi Vangelis, All, Evangelos Vlachogiannis wrote: <quote> I think it is a good time to also raise an issue here regarding the naming convention of "content" as I had described in [1] . Do you think this is really an issue? </quote> Shadi Abou-Zahra responded: <quote> Yes, I agree that this is an issue. I was also wondering if there may be cases where there needs to be more than one "content" file to carry out a test. Hence, maybe the naming convention for the "content" files is not really required, the necessary files for a test are indicated in the metadata anyway. What do others think? </quote> Referencing more than one test file from TCDL is not a problem (<file> is repeatable). The reuse-versus-duplication issue raised by Vangelis is something else. In this original mail [1] he proposed to use a naming convention based on IDs of techniques instead of SC numbers. That could work, but it would work better if we used the "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" as "rules" instead of the success criteria - something that Shadi suggested earlier. This would be different from the approach in BenToWeb and would make the mapping from BenToWeb test cases to TSD TF samples more complicated, but we should discuss this in the next call. I need to think a bit more about the implications also (e.g. rulesets.xml). [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/ 0043.html Best regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 18:26:18 UTC