- From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 17:16:17 +0200
- To: "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi again and again, > > There are two related but yet quite different use cases for > implicit > > URI (e.g. "example.org" means all resources available under > this domain name): > > 1. to facilitate more compact EARL reports > > I disagree with this use case. "Compactability" was not one > of the EARL requirements. To facilitate aggregation yes, but > not this one. Why *not this one*? <blockquote> F04: EARL 1.0 will support aggregation of test results according to different criteria (for example with respect to the subject) </blockquote> Aggregation according to the subject --> Aggregated subjects e.g. Domain, Subdomain, etc... > > 2. to enable blanket statements such as conformance claims > > Then, let us create a Conformance Claim Reporting Language, > but not EARL. BTW, I am not volunteering to write that note > ;-) Seriously, blanket statements can be presented in myriads > of ways, basically, one per person wanting a summary (and we > have different experiences with that and imergo). However, I > don't think EARL is the tool to do that. "...such as conformance claims", not only conformance claims. Reports that doesn't need this level of detail in general. > > ISSUE: > > It turns out that such implicit URIs also bring about > ambiguity. For > > example, if a new page is added to "example.org" after an assertion > > was made, is then the assertion result still valid? Similarly, for > > blanket statements such as conformance claims, it is > unlikely that all > > pages under "example.org" have been tested but probably only a > > sampling. It is therefore rather imprecise (but still > useful) to give > > a blanket statement without further description of what has been > > tested, and which methodology has been used to test. > > The ambiguity is more on "which resources are really *under* > example.org, than with the moment on which the assertion was > made. Is images.example.org included, or > www-intern.example.org included (I owe this one to JK)? No, they're not included because they are subdomains. This is why the proposal [1] includes a "Domain" Scope and a "Subdomain" Scope. If you define a "Domain" Scope just example.org is included, if you define a "Subdomain" Scope then images.example.org and www-inter.example.org are also included. >How did you crawl all resources? Did you include all possible > POST variants in forms? Did you get also the error messages > from the server? You could just record the variables you were using during the crawler. > > PROPOSAL: > > The currently suggested proposal is that EARL should only focus on > > recording actual test results (ie. no implicit URIs, only explicit > > ones). In some cases, RDF features such as collections may > be suitable > > to reduce verbosity (still, every tested URI will need to > be recorded > > at least once per report). As to blanket conformance claims, other > > vocabularies (preferably RDF-CL) should be able to provide the > > required functionality of expressing these, and pointing > back to the > > EARL report for more detail on what has been tested. > > Amen. > > > EXAMPLES: > > * "example.org/page.html passes WCAG 1.0 CP 1.1" > > - the "usual" way of using EARL to record test results will > still be > > available > > * "example.org/page.html passes WCAG 1.0 Level A" > > - a contraction of individual checkpoints is possible due > to the WCAG > > hierarchy > > It depends. There is still an open discussion on TestCase and > TestRequirements. Until that discussion is closed, some of > the above examples might not be valid. I can't see how the discussion on TestCases and TestRequirements affects to the examples above. Could you elaborate? > > * "example.org conforms to WCAG 1.0 Level A" > > - not to be expressed by EARL but by a different set of vocabulary > > (RDF-CL) > > I agree. I think we shouldn't focus on covering conformance claims needs, but I don't see any problem if, as a result of our work in other areas, EARL is also useful to express conformance claims. [1] - [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Feb/0009] Regards, CI. -------------------------------------- Carlos Iglesias CTIC Foundation Science and Technology Park of Gijón 33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain phone: +34 984291212 fax: +34 984390612 email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 15:17:04 UTC