- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:27:33 -0000
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
"Sean B. Palmer": > > Very useful, much easier to read, and understand. > > Great! > > > It also got me back interested in creating my EARL > > client - so I did [...] > > Even greater! I found the scripts easy to find, download, and install, > and it appears to have worked like a charm. Most links are underlined > in dashed orange at the moment, except links to valet.webthing.org > (the test site), and w3.org. Yep, I would've put out a robot harvesting a few likely sites into the DB, but as it's reliant on Nick's service, I didn't want to send a robot against it without his agreement and also thought it might be worthwhile waiting until the check is more exhaustive than just a validation which is of little real world use to people browsing. Thin dashed orange means not checked, thick dashed orange means checked but inconclusive result, thick dashed blue means pass, thick dashed red means fail, but that's just a starter, there is probably a better UI. > Your hash property raises an intersting situation: that people will > and should be able to add properties that serve the same function as > "date" and "version". We use date and/or version just to make sure > that assertions about one page or thing on one day aren't confused > with the same thing on another day, when it may have been fixed (or > broken). Indeed, but I don't find date and version sufficient for my needs, the problem being with those sites who do server side negotiation of some sort, it's no use me doing an EARL report only to find it's actually totally different if I sent an SVG accept header (or even HTTP_USER_AGENT <spit>.) or for sites who don't send last modified (despite the content being identical each time.) I'm imagining whenever content is found to be different it's scheduled for a revisit by a robot to do new tests (or automatically done by the client itself, depending on how the checks do pan out.). I have one question, that you're probably best served to answer - How do I combine two EARL reports, say a validation pass, but then a human coming in and saying, No, that's no good it fails WCAG 3.1 - how would I combine those in a single EARL report? - at the moment I was just going to use my moomin report as a catchall for a whole basket, but I might aswell do it properly and actually collate the reports of different test tools into one. > Anyway, the demonstration is a very good one. Is there any possibility > of releasing the ASP code and any other trinkets required? Of course, it's stunningly simple ASP, and the mySQL database is a table with url,EARL,result and hash fields- it needs a reworking really before more intelligent queries can be made by the client, I'll package it all up though (after correcting the other issues you noted) for download tomorrow. Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 18:34:05 UTC