- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:43:09 +0100 (BST)
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, w3c-wai-er-ig <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Test results currently have a type (pass, fail, not applicable, etc) and a > confidence (high, medium, low). > > I propose you add a third property: severity. This would be a record of how well > or badly the test passed or failed. Agreed. I've already added it to the test definition language I've just been doodling with. > I would propose that we have qualitative rather than quantitative ratings. > For some use cases you Yb - pass with unrelated errors would count as a pass, > and for some cases it would score as a fail. So we would need to know what > they are. I'd second that (I thought that was the original proposal as discussed in the f2f?) > The question also arises as to how many kinds of result we should include in > earl and at what point we should leave people to subclass them for their own > more detailed uses. I wonder if we might want to use some syslog-like vocabulary, CRITICAL-ALARM-ERROR-WARNING-NOTICE sort of thing within EARL? That still leaves the way open for people to do their own thing. -- Nick Kew Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 18:43:26 UTC