proposal for new naming convention

Hi,

As a follow-up to the summary at [1], I had an action item to propose 
a new naming convention.
The current naming convention, which applies both to filenames and 
the ID in the TCDL metadata, encodes the SC number, the SC level and 
the number of the test sample (for which renumbering restarts for every SC).
For the stability of the URLs of the test samples, it would be better 
to use the SC IDs instead of the SC numbers. Leaving out the SC level 
would add even more stability to the test sample ID.
We also found that TCDL does not have metadata from which it is easy 
to infer to which test suite a test sample belongs (assuming there 
may be several test suites later on).

Here's a proposal for a new convention:
the format would be  TECH_SCID_NNN  where
  * TECH is the "technology" or a simple identifier for the test suite,
    e.g. xhtml1 for the current test suite;
  * SCID is the ID of the success criterion,
    e.g. text-equiv-all is the ID for the SC 1.1.1;
  * NNN is the number of the test sample for the current SC (so 
numbering restarts for each SC).
Example: xhtml1_text-equiv-all_002 would become the new ID of the 
test sample that is currently known as sc1.1.1_l1_002.

Two additional comments:

1) This proposal adds an identifier for the test suite, but other 
conventions are conceivable. For example we could leave out 'TECH_' 
from the test sample ID and instead add a 'testSuite' attribute to 
the root element (/testCaseDescription/@testSuite). This attribute 
could contain a URL like http://www.example.org/WAI/ER/tests/xhtml/ 
[2] instead of a simple string to uniquely identify the test suite 
(to please the RDF aficionados ;-) ).

2) The proposal removes level information from the ID, but currently 
every XSLT pipeline that generates HTML from the TCDL metadata uses 
/testCaseDescription/@id to generate Level identifiers (1-2-3 or 
A-A-AAA). There are several options here:
  * drop the level information altogether (not a good idea, IMHO);
  * add level information elsewhere in TCDL 2.0 and the TSD TF metadata;
  * get the level information from rulesets.xml, where it is already 
available (my preferred option).
The XSLT that generates the HTML view of the metadata already uses 
rulesets.xml. The XSLT that generates the overview table at 
<http://tinyurl.com/ynu7q4> would need to be adapted to pull in 
rulesets.xml; I will test this option next week.

This issue will be on the agenda of the next teleconference, next 
Tuesday 8 April.


[1] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Feb/0010.html>
[2] I deliberately use example.org instead of w3.org because I don't 
want to create a reference that we may reject later (remember 
<http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03>!).

Best regards,

Christophe


---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.

-- 
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 Friday, 4 April 2008 19:25:35 UTC