- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:45:00 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Nick here makes the point nicely. There is little point in defining a way to
link an HTML documennt to an EARL report, since it is reasonable to expect
that most earl reports will be about a part of an HTML document, or will be
written by someone who should not be changing the document itself.
Using a single "well-known location" solution fails for the same reason.
We should look more closely at the services and annotations models in
technologies such as Xlink, PICS bureaux, Annotea, and so on if we want a
solution that allows us to use EARL as we originally proposed.
Chaals
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Nick Kew wrote:
[snip]
<link rel="earl-report" ...>
- or [shudder] <meta name="earl-report" ...> ?
Who is going to generate such a beastie?
Or do you have in mind a predefined URL (a la robots.txt),
or a third-party EARL database server?
WAC:
> a. also looks throughout the site for a .earl file to give the conformance
> claim to wcag 2.0.
NK:
How is this going to apply to a large multi-author site, that take care
with new content but has a legacy, and perhaps some departments using
dicey publishing software?
WAC:
> b. each page on the site has a link to the .earl file. it acts like an
> external css or script file that all pages on a site can point to. then,
> the claim is only has to be updated once to effect the whole site.
NK:
If we just take the author's word for it, aren't we defeating the
purpose of EARL? I was under the impression that we were looking
to collate comments from different sources, from the automated
such as Site Valet to the human "I can't read that".
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 05:46:16 UTC