- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:34:33 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi, Thanks you Johannes for this batch of comments. I think the following definitions could be particularly interesting for HTTP-in-RDF: Johannes Koch wrote: > 3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and VALID_MARKUP > >> If the document is an HTML document > > What is "an HTML document" here? Which characteristics are to be checked? > > > 3.6 EXTERNAL_RESOURCES > >> Note that if an HTTP request is unsuccessful while conducting this test > > What is "unsuccessful" here? 3.4 could be useful in our "algorithm" (or vice-versa), and 3.6 may lead to some insights on "connection failure" situation we had discussed. There are many other definitions and conventions here that could also be useful. For example white space, document size, and URI schemes. I was also particularly interested in the question on the format of the tests -I think this pseudo-code approach could be useful for WCAG 2.0 Techniques too, what do others think? 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 Wednesday, 6 June 2007 08:34:32 UTC