Re: TCDL Draft E


Thanks Christophe for refining this! Please find a couple of comments below for discussion:

1. In "formalMetadata" we should consider making dc:creator and dc:rights constant values. The creator is this Task Force (and/or the WGs), and the copyrights are W3C. It would be good to have a possibility to point to the license too!

2. In "formalMetadata" we should consider making the version number required. I think it is important to count both the test as well as the test suite version numbers. Maybe a numbering convention like S.T.U = "Test Suite number"."Test number"."Update number" could help? For example, 1.3.14 means the Test Suite version 1, Test version 3, and Update to that test number 14.

3. In "formalMetadata" we should consider dropping the source and dc:contributor elements because we need to be careful with "borrowing" stuff and potentially overwriting the copyrights.

4. In "formalMetadata" we should consider dropping the Extension element unless there is a strong use case. Remember, the scope is only this Task Force, we can always add things later on as needed.

5. In "technologies" what is the use case for the "testElement"? (It seems to me to be part of the files element in the testCase).

6. In "testCase" I am confused between the precondition and the requiredTests elements. I think the preconditions element should provide a mechanism to point to other test cases and the expected results, and the requiredTests should be dropped.

7. In "testCase" we should consider leaning on the EARL location pointers to express line/column, xpath, etc.

8. In "testCase" what does it mean if one location is expected to fail, and another is expected to pass? Shouldn't there be one expected result for the test case as a whole then separate location pointers to the occurence(s) of the trigger?

9. In "testCase" what is the functionalOutcome? Is that the expected result for the test case as a whole? What is the techComment then exactly?


Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> Dear TSD TF participants,
> Attached you will find a more complete draft of TCDL 2.0. I am also 
> resending the example because there was an error in the example I sent 
> last week.
> Please review the draft to see if any required elements or attributes 
> need to be made optional, or which elements or attribute you wouuld like 
> to see removed from the subset you would like to work with.
> The next section I will complete is "Rulesets" (hopefully before the 
> telecon).
> Best regards,
> Christophe

Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | 
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)  | 
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), | 
WAI-TIES Project,       | 
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, | 
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France | 
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 | 

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 08:08:43 UTC