RE: TCDL Draft E

Hi everybody, 

Another couple of comments for further discussion (apologies for the
late sending): 

A. DC elements are frequently used, why did you create "date" and
"description" attributes instead adopting "dc:date" and
"dc:description"? 

B. in "formalMetadata" "status" is intended to provide a value from an
enumerated list, we should consider providing also a "pointer" to the
"allowable values" or just provide a list of them for our specific use
case.

C. In "technologies" "xlink:href" is optional in the attached example
but required in the spec draft, what's the intended value?

D. If we reference browser vendor documents as "technologies", should we
create a test case for each browser vendor (i.e Javascript)?

E. In "technologies", baseline attributes in "technicalSpec" and
"testElement" are potentially in conflict, we should consider dropping
one of both. Additionally, how are we going to manage baselines? Is
expected that the group will create test cases for all posible
combinations of baselines?

F. In "testCase" I think that the expected results are important enough
to deserve their own element, we should consider separating the
"purpose" and the expected results (maybe "postconditions"?)

G. In "testCase" the "requiredTests" element faces complex problems,
like user testing or accessibility problems and disabilities matching,
that need further work and consensus. I think it's out of the scope of
this group because there is no common criterion (AFAIK there's no WCAG
WG work on the subject), some of the properties could be useful during
the development, but should not be published in the final version.

H. There is no much information about "rules" but I'm wondering whether
relevant locations within the test file are necessary and if we need
outcome information (pass or fail). IMO the whole test case is relevant
or irrelevant, and if a rule is intended to pass a test case and other
rule is intended to fail the same test case they are not compatible, so
they need different test cases.

Regards,
CI.


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-wai-ert-tsdtf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-wai-ert-tsdtf-request@w3.org] En nombre de 
> Christophe Strobbe
> Enviado el: martes, 12 de septiembre de 2006 2:31
> Para: TSDTF
> Asunto: TCDL Draft E
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> --
> 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/ 
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:08:49 UTC