- From: <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:03:39 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
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