- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:56:10 +1000
- To: shadi@w3.org
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
There are several reasons why I think that the evidence structure should be attached to the Assertion, not associated with the test done, nor the subject of the test. The strongest one for me is the fact that there are different ways of making the decision - if I have a different set of rules for deciding whether to go out on Saturday, I can provide them seperately, or I can just state the atomic result without justification (which is what I usually do when I am going out on Saturday night :-) The structure I proposed is designed to allow for an Assertion to include a reference to the decision making process used (Karl's, or my rules, in the example), and each item that was used in making the decision. Nothing stops you from making a bare assertion (say, conformance to WCAG double-A) without evidence. Many sites already do this. The point is to provide, for cases where it is helpful, a way of tracking back to the evidence. A use case is a site that has a monitoring program, and actually wants tocheck where its problems with reaching a particular profile of conformance are occurring. cheers Chaals On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:40:02 +1100, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > However, I'm not entirely convinced it should be in something like the > evidence structure > you are proposing but rather within the Subject which we are testing. > What I mean is some > way to say the result is for one atomic test (i.e. "Test 2") or for a > statement ("go out > on sunday") which is actually an aggregation of tests (Tests 1+2+3). -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 14:56:24 UTC