- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:14:45 +0100
- To: Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
True! Was only trying to highlight the trade-off... Carlos A Velasco wrote: > Hi Shadi, Nils, > > Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: >> Hi Nils, >> >> This is indeed a use case. However, the issue with this is that it >> generates huge reports. Basically a full copy of all the tested >> resources (+ some EARL metadata that may become negligible with this >> amount of data). > > It depends on the functionality of the tool. For QA scenarios, there is > no other choice than storing the rendered content, to keep history of > changes. > >> Thus, most evaluation tools will probably omit recording the actual HTTP >> content (payload). I imagine tools may become "intelligent" and only use >> the earl:WebContent class when specific HTTP parameters are essential to >> describe the tested resources (for example, on a site that can be >> personalized or uses sessions). But this is a different discussion... ;) > > Like I said, it depends on what the tools is designed for. > > regards, > carlos > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff 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 Friday, 17 February 2006 08:14:50 UTC