EARL for a multivalued test subject

If you select the "listed" view at Accessibility Valet, you will
see warnings listed at the top: each test failed by anything in
a document, together with a list of DOM nodes that failed it.

I'm trying to do the same thing in EARL:

Assertion
  Testsubject: nodeA, nodeB, nodeC
  [ rest of assertion ]
/Assertion

Now I could simply be verbose, and write the above as three
separate assertions (as in Page Valet).  But what happens if
I use shorthand, such as:

<earl:Assertion>
  <earl:TestSubject rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <rdf:type
	rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/04/earl1-0.rdf#WebContent"/>
    <valet:representation
	rdf:resource="http://valet.webthing.com/access/"/>
    <dom:node rdf:resource="x36"/>
    <dom:node rdf:resource="x34"/>
    <dom:node rdf:resource="x32"/>
  </earl:TestSubject>
  <earl:resultProperty
	rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/04/earl1-0.rdf#fails"/>
  <earl:Confidence
	rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/04/earl1-0.rdf#Medium"/>
  <earl:TestCase
	rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-tab-order"/>
  <earl:Note>Create keyboard shortcuts and/or a logical tab order between
	controls.</earl:Note>
</earl:Assertion>

This is trying to say that the test subject comprises three nodes
in a DOM representation generated by the accessibility valet tool.

Alternatively, does anything bad happen if I use a direct
shorthand for multiple assertions:

<earl:Assertion>
  <earl:TestSubject rdf:resource="x36"/>
  <earl:TestSubject rdf:resource="x34"/>
  <earl:TestSubject rdf:resource="x32"/>
  <earl:resultProperty
        rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/04/earl1-0.rdf#fails"/>
  <earl:Confidence
        rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/04/earl1-0.rdf#Medium"/>
  <earl:TestCase
        rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-tab-order"/>
  <earl:Note>Create keyboard shortcuts and/or a logical tab order between
        controls.</earl:Note>
</earl:Assertion>

Referring back to the table of results in the "listed" HTML reports,
does anyone have a better suggestion for doing this in EARL?



[ btw - I've just been chatting to Wendy about this, but we didn't
  reach any firm conclusions ]


-- 
Nick Kew

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 18:03:45 UTC