- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:27:07 +0100
- To: "'Johannes Koch'" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi, It is intentional that EARL is kept generic to serve most quality assurance testing. The Subject is a URI so could point to any (RDF) resource, not even necessarily on the Web (e.g. <http://www.example.org/toasters/mytoaster>). Also the Testcase can be any test, maybe even proprietary to others (e.g. <http://www.example.org/toasters/tests#crashtest>). The only real restriction of EARL is the result which is a predetermined set (although they can be subclassed for further granularity, they remain to be one of Pass/Fail/NotApplicable/NotTested). One operational example of that is the W3C HTML validator which can output the validation result as EARL. This is not an accessibility test per-se but testing a document (i.e. instance) to its own formal grammar (i.e. specification)... Regards, Shadi -----Original Message----- From: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org On Behalf Of Johannes Koch Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:00 To: public-wai-ert@w3.org Subject: Scope for EARL Yesterday Gabriele asked me if EARL should only be used for accessibility test results. I think EARL can be used for other tests, too. What do you think? -- Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 11:27:08 UTC