- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:14:23 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
"Sean B. Palmer" > 03:15:33 <sbp> * Remove testSubject > 03:15:40 <sbp> * Add reprOf I'm concerned this moves away from EARL as being general purpose evaluate/report on anything language, to a language for reporting on webpages (with different "EARL"s for UA's etc.) I'm also concerned that by introducing threading it complicates evaluations which should be unthreaded, which as I see the uses is more common (multiple tools/people make evaluations but testSubjects change infrequently.) Threading only seems to be of value within a single evaluator, ie I only believe we can trust Tool says resource fails, Tool later says resource passes - unless my particular EARL tool has defined some sort of trust relationship between tools. I can't see how EARL could define how Tool1 says resource fails, Tool2 later saying resource passes as we don't know if it's a defective tool, or a change of resource, or some "unknown" content negotiation. (As to why CC/PP is not sufficient, is it's got no support, and the current proposals make no sense so I can't see it having any support for many years - content negotiation based on browser is a very bad idea.) Jim. (cc'd to Aaron as the original was...)
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2001 10:29:50 UTC