initial review of sc1.2.1_l1_002?

Initial "manual"  review of sc1.2.1_l1_002:


Name and Email Address of the Submitter (File) Are Available -


Not sure if files pass -
I could not name and email of submitter in the metadata file itself; the
submitter name is in the test sample list, but the email associated with 
that submitter does not
appear to me to be the personal address of the submitter (rather a generic 
email
address). (QUESTION: Should the name and email address of the submitter be
included in the metadata file directly? - if this has already been discussed
and I've forgotten, please accept my apologies). Similarly, I could not 
find submitter
information in the actual file).


Organization on whose behalf the test sample (file) was submitted -


Not sure if files pass - this organization name is not given explicitly in the
metadata file itself (although it is given in the list of test samples); the
organization may be derived by implication ("bentoweb") in "xmlns"? 
(QUESTION: Should this
organization be included in the metadata directly? - if this has already been
discussed and I've forgotten, please accept my apologies). Similarly, I did 
not find the
submitting organization mentioned explicitly in the actual file, but it may 
be derived by
implication from the "copyright" notification contained?


Test Files


All the files that are necessary to execute the test procedure have been
submitted -


not sure? In the actual file, I could not locate (or get to play? the
file "sc1.2.1_l1_002.wmv", but maybe that's just me) Also, for link in 
"files" containing a file in
subdirectory "testfiles", "sc1.2.1_l1_002.html", shouldn't the path include 
subdirectory "video"
  before the actual filename?


  All the submitted files follow the naming convention and directory 
structure -



not sure? (see note just previous) Other naming conventions and directory
structure issues seem to be satisfied by these two submitted files, except 
that the
required "techniques" element (from the metadata document) does not seem to 
be included
  in the metadata file?
(NOTE: The lower-
case "l" and the number "1" may appear almost identical in certain 
renderings - should
it be considered to use upper-case "L" which might be less confusing? Just a
thought..)
(NOTE: There are additional elements (for example, "functionalOutcome" and 
"TestElement" - twice -)
included in the metadata file which were not mentioned (that I could see) 
in the metadata
document.. Should these be mentioned in case they have inadvertent 
"side-effects"?)
(QUESTION: "file" is "required" in the Test Samples Metadata Document, but 
the four
choices afterwards "http: GetRequest", "http: PostRequest", 
"http:PutRequest", and "http: HeadRequest"
are all "optional" - is it possible to have none of these four choices 
included since they're all "optional"?
Perhaps the document can be reworded more precisely?  In any case, none of 
these strings is explicitly
included after the "file" element..)


All the files include valid markup unless otherwise required by the test -


not sure?
I ran the metadata file through Oxygen validator, and result indicated file 
was
valid, but I'm not sure whether I validated against schematron or just XML 
schema?,
since I don't know Oxygen that well yet..). For the actual file, a check of 
the URL
against the new W3C Validator revealed four errors (was not valid XHTML1.0 
Strict - 1) line 11,
column 13: there is no attribute "src", 2) line 11, column 55: there is no 
attribute "loop", 3)
line 11, column 72: there is no attribute "autostart", 4) line 11, column 79:
element "embed" undefined..


All the files include correct links unless otherwise required by the test

- not sure? It depends on what the definition of "correct" is in this 
context.. The
links presented in the two files all seem reasonable, but might need to 
check further..


All the files include correct spelling unless otherwise required by the test -


pass? A cursory examination reveals spelling seems to be correct. I ran a 
spell
checkers on the metadata file and "HyperText" was an unrecognized word 
(suggested
replacing with "hypertext")?



Metadata



All the dates and other integer or literal values have the correct format -


not sure?
It depends on what the definition of "correct" is in this context. A cursory
examination of the formats of such values indicate that they seem 
reasonable, but bears
further examination..


All static values (especially copyright notices) are included and accurate -


pass? Copyright notices are included in both files, but for the metadata 
file, the
copyright notice seems to be W3C-related, whereas in the actual file, the 
copyright
notice seems to be "BentoWeb" related.. I can't speak fully to the accuracy 
of these
notices..
(QUESTION: I notice "Microsoft" is mentioned explicitly in the metadata file -
should there be some sort of attribution or other qualification as to the 
use of a
company name in this way?  There is a trademark on the XHTML reference - maybe
something similar for Microsoft as well?)


All titles, descriptions, and other required fields are included and 
accurate -


pass for metadata file? - For the actual file, see notes previous.. Need more
information on definition of "accurate"..


All identifiers (especially ID for techniques and rules) are used correctly -


pass? The id attribute value "sc1.2.1_l1_002" seems reasonable and 
consistent with
naming conventions, technique "G93" seems to be referenced correctly, and 
the primary
rule seems to be consistent with the BentoWeb ruleset in terms of naming
(I assume the "WCAG2_20070517_1.2" and "media-equiv-captions" are 
concatenated"
in the reference?) but didn't have time to check it further?


All structures such as rules, techniques, and pointers are used correctly -


not sure?  It depends upon the definition of "correct" in these contexts - 
the approach
seems reasonable, but without further definitions/specification it's hard 
to tell?

(COMMENT: It would be good to define precisely what "correct" means, so 
that reviewers and
submitters have more information to "get it right")

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 18:19:54 UTC