- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:20:23 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Hello all, The primary question from Monday's telecon was "how do we convince developers to use EARL." We've put this on the agenda for our joint conference call with the AU WG on Monday. Can we think of arguments, that are not accessibility related, that we could use to convince developers? For example, how would we convince the DOM test harness developers to produce EARL. Why would they want to do that? As we discussed Monday, the DOM WG wants to combine results of several test harnesses (to show interoperability?). The guts of the test harnesses can be completely different, but as long as they all produce markup someone/thing could combine results between them to get the overall conformance picture. Which is why they are currently "looking at developing a language-neutral form of representing tests (including expected results for advanced reports), documentation and other relevant details. We want this format to be language-neutral to support porting to most existing languages." [1] To this end, they have developed methods.dtd [2]. Will the "steep RDF learning curve" that Curt refers to [3] and Dimitris agrees with [4] be a problem in adoption? I think this is part of the issue that William was raising from his work with the Device Independence Working Group and why he wanted a low-level primer. Therefore, the issue seems to be adoption of RDF over XML rather than EARL in general. Thoughts? Am I off base? I'm still trying to get my head around this. Be well, --wendy [1] http://www.w3.org/DOM/Test/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001May/0067.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001May/0103.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001May/0106.html -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative seattle, wa usa tel: +1 206.706.5263 /--
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 11:14:36 UTC