- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:48:10 +0100
- To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Johannes Koch wrote: > > Carlos Iglesias wrote: >> Why not use an earl:TestRequirement class to truly reference a >> Requirement, an earl:TestCase class to truly reference a Test Case > > The scope of EARL is test reports, not the description of a test case or > a requirement. So if someone defines TestRequirement and TestCase > classes, they should not be in the EARL namespace, but the properties > referencing them may. My understanding is that there is agreement on this issue. However, we have proposed minimal and optional description possibilities (such as dc:title, dc:description, dc:isPartOf, etc) until there is a test case description language (now we may also need a test requirement description language) which we could readily use instead. It would still remain outside EARL but we would recommend using it (as with the HTTP stuff for example). The question is really: one property or two? I kind of understand the arguments but am concerned people may confuse the two on regular basis which would make reports incompatible. Regards, Shadi -- 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 Tuesday, 31 January 2006 14:48:13 UTC