- From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:14:16 -0000
- To: "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wai-ert-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra 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). They also define exactly when the WARN result should be issued by using pseudo code for each test. In WCAG we don't have a clear definition of when warnings should be issued so this may lead to tool developers misusing warning results to satisfy the users who don't like to see errors. [PW] According to the last conversation re mobileOK (or at least from what I can remember, David Rooks?), a WARN would be a result just like PASS or FAIL, not an additional flag. >> It seems we still need a compelling example of a real warning in the >> context of EARL. We often talked about warning to describe situations >> such as "nearly-passed" or "could-do-better". > > 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. [PW] Huh? Nearly pass = fail, i.e. it didn't pass. Sometimes you need to be black and white and move on. Kind regards, Paul
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 19:14:28 UTC