- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:10:13 +1000
- To: shadi@w3.org, public-wai-ert@w3.org
Probable regrets. 2am is just a bit unlikely for me (although I may manage it). On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:38:19 +1000, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > 2. EARL Processing Model > - Let's discuss how we can expand the PM > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Apr/0001.html> A suggestion: The nature of each test should determine what kind of locator information is most useful for that test. This assumes that we define different kinds of locator. That way we can describe the relevant ones for each test without describing anything more about the test (and falling further down the slippery slope of a test definition language before we need to). > 3. Conformance to EARL > - Chris posted some sample of EARL based on WCAG tests > - Assuming the EARL is correct, is that what we need? > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Mar/0073.html> It's not correct, and that is a real problem in determining if it is what we need. It shows a handful of possible locator possibilities, and doesn't make it clear if they should all be used together, or some should and some should not, or what. It doesn't cover the case of an assertion made as the result of an inference (mode="heuristic"), where I think we shold enable the evidence to be provided. I think there is a question of whether we need a confidence rating, given the interoperability problems with it. If we are going to do this we should note that there are a number of possible forms that the output can take, since it is RDF. (I think there are a number of reasons wy we should not lead people to assume that it will also conform to some XML schema. The short version is that it breaks interoperability with RDF). But it is certainly on the right track. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 15:10:17 UTC