unkown testing mode (was Re: Updated EARL 1.0 Schema Editors' Draft)

Hi,

Carlos Iglesias wrote:
>>> 
>>> * 2.5 Test Mode
>>> 
>>> "earl:mixed Where there is no detailed information about the test
>>> mode available..."
>>> 
>>> IMO should be something like:
>>> 
>>> Where THE TEST WAS PERFORMED BY AN UNKNOW COMBINATION OF AGENTS 
>>> AND/OR TOOLS...
>>> 
>>> To avoid confusion with an "unknow" mode (no information at all)
>> 
>> Do we have an "unknown" mode?
> 
> No, we haven't. But IMO the current earl:mixed definition is more
> close to this non-existen unknown mode. What I want is to avoid
> people reading the definition and thinking "OK, this means unknow"
> because there is an essential difference:
> 
> Unknow --> No idea how the test where performed (only tools, only
> humans, tools and humans...)
> Mixed --> The test was performed by an unknow combination of 
> Agents AND Tools (sorry, ignore the "OR" in my previous message) 
> i.e we don't have details but we KNOW that both (human and tools) 
> where involved.
> 
> Additionally maybe we should add explicity an earl:unknow mode (based
> on the previous definitions)

We've had this discussion before. If the test mode is *really* unknown, then it the (optional) property should be simply left out from the assertion (tools can still look into the required assertor class and try to deduce anything they can).

Do you insist on an earl:unknown value for the test mode?

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, 19 September 2006 11:10:30 UTC