RE: sc2.5.1_l1_003 step 2: Structure review

Hi Christophe,

> > - There is a technology dependency (JS) in the sc2.5.1_l1_002 test 
> > sample. In this case the related technique is specifically about 
> > client-side validation, so it's quite obvious we should need 
> > client-side technology, but do we need to explicitly say it in the 
> > metadata? (the baseline again)
> This refers to sc2.5.1_l1_002. In this test case, JavaScript 
> is explicitly excluded in the baseline by means of the second 
> "technicalSpec" element in "technologies".

It reads: 

<technicalSpec xlink:href="" baseline="included">

So I think it's explicity included in the baseline, not excluded. Isn't it?

> > - Right now I still don't get the whole ruleset thing for the 
> > objectives of this TF. In the uploaded test cases the rule elements 
> > point to an xml document with a series of rulesets. I think 
> we should 
> > think about restricting these pointers to direct WCAG2 references.
> The rulesets XML document was created because not all 
> accessibility requirements documents (or at least their 
> normative versions) are in a format that allows pointers into 
> the document (like HTML's fragment identifiers). The rulesets 
> XML provides an ID for each accessibility requirement. It's a 
> kind of adapter or bridge between our metadata and the actual 
> accessibility documents. (If the accessibility document 
> should move to another address, you only need to update the 
> rulesets XML instead of hundreds of test cases.) Of course, 
> WCAG 2.0 is a special case because W3C/cool URLs don't change 
> and WCAG 2.0 contains many fragment identifiers.

This is why I say we should think about restricting these pointers to direct WCAG2 references (URIs) instead to XML documents whithin the TF. I think it would make things easier (review proccess included).

> > - I'm not sure about how minimal should the test samples be, I mean 
> > the sc2.5.1_l1_002 test sample is compound just of a label and an 
> > input, it's minimal and complete from the point of view of 
> automatic 
> > validation, but it doesn't look complete at all from an user 
> > perspective.
> We may need to discuss that in the next telecon.

To introduce the topic, I think that the "minimal concept" as currently managed is OK for our three first use cases at [1] but not for the last one: "Web Content Developers".

> > IMO trying to scrutinize the XML directly is quite a rough work. It 
> > may help if we provide a web interface to see the metadata.
> It becomes easier when you get more familiar with the format 
> but I agree that we will benefit from a web interface.

Some parts could become easier when you get more familiar but others, like creator or rights, not.

[1] - []


Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain 

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612

Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 11:17:00 UTC