- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, w3c-wai-er-ig <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Nick Kew wrote: > 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. Well, we would like to define stuff so that people can figure out how to make it interoperate - other than that people might as well use their own terms, since that way we will know that we need to figure out after the event if there is a way to interoperate. intersting things to ponder. To be honest my personal priority is to get a useful version of EARL done (my personal definition is that I can run a test in one tool find two problems, use another tool to declare that in fact the first problem isn't real, use another tool to do a repair, and then run the test in the first tool and not get reports of those problems), but I think there is value in following on with this - in part becuase it will probably teach us stuff we need to think about for EARL. Cheers Chaals
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 18:54:18 UTC