Re: [ACTION] Warnings in EARL

Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb:
> Johannes Koch wrote:
>>
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb:
>>> I think purists would argue that these are actually three separate 
>>> testable criteria hiding in one shell:
>>>
>>> * CSS document validity
>>> * background/foreground color contrast
>>> * redefinition of properties
>>
>> None of the last two affect CSS validity. So the warnings are of the 
>> "PASS, but you should do better" type. All of the warnings in the 
>> current mobileOK basic draft are also this type.
> 
> Correct, the last two tests may not affect CSS validity (I listed that 
> as a separate test) but they may or may not affect the accessibility of 
> the served resource. So it really depends on the context of what you are 
> testing for. No?

That's right.

> And as to mobileOK, the WARN seems to be a result just like a PASS or 
> FAIL not an additional flag as proposed by CarlosI (however, it seems to 
> be a kind of PASS too).

That was my first impression, so I commented on that. But it is _not_. 
The warnings are really just _informative_. See 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2006OctDec/0019.html>.

>> What is "nearly-passed"? A cannotTell?
> 
> That is exactly the problem! ;) ..."nearly-passed" could just as well be 
> a fail. For example, "if you just close that one tag your document would 
> validate but right now it is invalid" result.

So it's a fail. Where is the warning?

> I still don't see a definition for what a warning in the context of EARL 
> is. Please propose a definition if you have a suggestion.

You asked for an example, not a definition.

-- 
Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE)
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065

Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 08:38:59 UTC