Re: Commetns on the September 2005 draft

Hi,

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> Opera's main comment on this draft is that the schema is horribly 
> bloated  by trying to include every property that is expected to be 
> understood as  something that may exist one or more times...
> 
> Instead of adding a list of properties as optional, we suggest that the  
> working group define a set of properties and classes that a conformant  
> EARL system must be able to produce/consume/pass on/render (as relevant).

OK, point taken. Let's revisit once the EARL 1.0 Guide is further along if that is fine by Opera. I think we should really have this information somewhere but maybe not necessarily in the actual Schema. Maybe a (non-normative) BNF type grammar in one of the two EARL 1.0 documents? This will be a help for tool developers who want to see all the properties/classes they need to be able to parse at one glance.


> An interesting test case for EARL would be to create test cases for all  
> the things we expect to be available, and publish whether or not tools 
> can  handle them in the relevant scenarios.

Yup, test case development is yet another beast. Tool developers can run their own tools against these and identify problems. Not sure if we want to start testing other tools.

Regards,
  Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra,     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe 
Chair and Team Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),           http://www.w3.org/ 
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ 
WAI-TIES Project,                 http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ 
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,     http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ 
2004, Route des Lucioles -- 06560, Sophia-Antipolis -- France 
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64           Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22

Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 09:37:30 UTC