Re: revised reviews for 001 and 002

Hi Tim,

Tim Boland wrote:
> 
> I have revised my reviews of 001 and 002 after considering the new 
> information in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Jul/0014.html
> and rereading the process document.  All my conclusions now are "pass" 
> or "fail" (no more "not sures).. with additional explanations provided.

Thank you very much for updating these. They look much better and are 
much clearer. You have also caught some important issues that need to be 
discussed. Note however that many of these catches belong into the 
content reviews rather than the structure reviews. Please find some 
comments below to further explain this.


## Review 001:

- Question: All the files include correct links unless otherwise 
required by the test.
- Your review: fail, link http://lists.w3.org.. in metadata file is broken
- Comment: I was not able to replicate the broken link. The only link 
that matches your description seems correct to me: 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/>

- Question: All the files include correct spelling unless otherwise 
required by the test.
- Your review: fail, in testfile, should be "for" formatting, not "from" 
formatting - broken English
- Comment: good catch!

- Question: All the dates and other integer or literal values have the 
correct format.
- Your review: fail, date is given as for example 2008/06/12 - shouldn't 
it be 06-12-2008 according to format referenced in metadata document?
- Comment: actually no, CVS values such as "2008/07/16 14:42:48" are 
accepted: <http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0.html#edef-dcdate>

- Question: All static values (especially copyright notices) are 
included and accurate.
- Your review: fail, copyright is given as a range of dates 1994-2006 - 
shouldn't it be one date (date copyright is effective)?
- Comment: this is a boilerplate text, and the range is fine. It needs 
to be updated to 2008 though, but that is a known issue for all tests.

- Question: All titles, descriptions, and other required fields are 
included and accurate.
- Your review: fail, purpose tag is misleading in metadata file, and 
title tag in testfile is misleading as well as broken English ("for" 
instead of "from") - can't be proven that this is what blockquote is 
being used for
Comment: while this is an important issue to discuss, these types of 
comments really belong into the content review as they interpret the 
test sample. Note that I took an action item to revise the wording of 
the structure review template to clarify this.


## Review 002:

Question: [all the ones that repeat review 001]
Comment: same as above.

Question: All identifiers (especially ID for techniques and rules) are 
used correctly.
Your review: fail, reference is to failure technique but this test is a 
"pass" according to purpose (see previous comment)? Also HTML4.01 says 
blockquote is for long quotes, and this is a short one? Should we use 
quote marks to make it more obvious that this is a "quote" (again, 
testing intent)?
Comment: this is a really important intervention that needs discussion. 
As with the previous comment on Review 001, this really belongs into the 
content review rather than the structure review. I have taken an action 
item to also revise this wording.


Thanks,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 16:26:37 UTC