- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:41:14 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- cc: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Jim Ley wrote: 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.). CMN One of the things we don't have in EARL (as far as I know - I have not followed it for a few weeks) is a way to provide more comprehensive context information - encode the HTTP request sent for example, or CC/PP if you happen to be using it. Jim: 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. CMN Well, the question of how to merge 2 chunks of RDF is mostly one for the RDF group, who work on such things, but there is a bit we should deal with - how to decide whether one report invalidates another, or whether a particular user should be asked to configure their trust rankings, or whether two reports are in fact compatible if contradictory and the information should be there from both of them. For example, a tool says "there is no alt attribute" and then 10 minutes later says "there is an alt attribute". Should the tool try to delete its earlier statement (this is possible with Annotea annotations) and replace it, or should it note that there is a thread, and provide a set of rules for merging data? cheers Chaals
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 02:41:17 UTC