- From: Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:49:25 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On the other hand, in talking to the folks at UsableNet they said that the > location thing is going to be really pretty important for providing > interoperability in the scenario wher a repair tool gets the information > about what is wrong for a different tool. This is backed up by the fact that > HiSoftware felt the need to have a tightly-specified way of referring to the > location of a problem, and used their own namespace to do it. Two quick comments. If one purpose of EARL is to promote interoperability between different tools that do evaluations and/or repair (like reading reports done by two or more tools and show an integrated view of the status of a page to a user; or tool A that produces a report to be used by tool B for repair; or tool A that produces a report that is read by tool B and B wants to track the status of some problem across time), then I think EARL should specify how to represent the location of a problem. Therefore I would promote the location from the private namespace into a more 'public' namespace. Secondly, as the location of a problem is already somehow represented within all the tools, EARL specification for it needs to encompass more than one possibility. I don't think it is viable to assume that EARL specifies the location as something (say # of line/column in the page) and then that every tool should adopt it. Giorgio
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 12:53:14 UTC