Re: initial review of sc1.2.1_l1_002?

Hi Time,

Thanks for the review.


At 14:35 29/08/2007, Tim Boland wrote:

>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).

Name and e-mail of the submitter are not specified in the metadata 
file but in the Test Sample Status List. When the test sample was 
submitted by or on behalf of BenToWeb, we use a generic and stable 
e-mail address, so that it is still possible to contact BenToWeb 
folks after the project ends. (See 
<http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01>.)


>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?

The "organization" is BenToWeb; this is specified in parentheses in 
the "Submitter" column.

The BenToWeb copyright notice in the test file needs to be removed 
because the materials are meant to be subject to W3C license after 
they are submitted.


>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?

It appears that the video file ended up in the wrong location: the 
'video' folder is supposed to be a subfolder of the 'resources' 
folder; we will need to fix that.


>  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?

Indeed, the technique mapping needs to be added.


>(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"?)

testElements is OK (optional), but functionalOutcome needs to be removed.
This also implies an action item for me to check and update the XSLT 
that converts TCDL 1.1 (from BenToWeb) to TSDTF metadata.


>(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..)

The xlink:href attribute is something I am a bit reluctant to remove 
from TCDL 2.0 until 'HTTP Vocabulary in RDF' is finalized. That said, 
for a simple GET request, which is what we have in this test, the 
file element should not use the xlink:href attribute but http:GetRequest.
The intention is to get exactly one of http:GetRequest, 
http:PostRequest, http:PutRequest or http:HeadRequest. Should I 
tighten the wording in <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/usingTCDL>?



>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..).

I don't know it either. I hope I will find some time to check in the 
next few weeks.

>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.

Hmm, I think the test file uses the embed as a fallback for browsers 
that don't support the object element. Either the valid markup 
requirement is a bit too tight or the purpose should mention why 
embed is used and that it should not be treated as invalidating the 
test file. Any thoughts?



>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..

The links are correct in theory, but the video file is not where it 
is supposed to be...



>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")?

I assume you mean "HyperText" in the specName element? That is the 
spelling used by the XHTML spec, so that's OK. Do we need to refine 
the spelling requirement?




>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..

The copyright notices are currently only available in the example file at
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/scx.x.x_lx_xxx.xml> (which is referenced from
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/usingTCDL#resources>).
The ISO Schematron file contains checks for these data.

>(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?)

Your attention to detail is impressive!
As far as I can make out, Microsoft uses a registered sign (R in a 
circle) after its name. I guess we need to fix this.



>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"..

I assume we use the normal dictionary meaning ;-)
In my opinion the description is incomplete, because it does not say 
anything about the embed element.

Best regards,

Christophe


>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")

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-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, 30 August 2007 11:01:29 UTC