- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:44:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Nick Kew wrote: >On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> Oh. I had a different understanding, which was that a heuristic result was >> one which was derived, rather than directly tested. [snip] >Anyway, this thread has confirmed her other point: if we're that unclear >on what it means, then it's not really very useful. > Well, I think it is useful, for the reasons you allude to below. (In MUTAT adia used something similar expressed in RDF, although Im not sure how far she went in returning the information). But yes, the Makefile rules are a good analogy to anyone familiar with how they work. Cheers Chaals >> So if you tested against something automatically (with a tool) you could >> assert that. If you had some results that implied another result, (for >> example a set of results for the collection of tests you have for checkpoint >> 1.1) then you would assert conformance, but heuristically. > >So in effect, a heuristic test outcome becomes a target for "make" or >equivalent, aggregating other tests. Corollary: a definition language >for heuristic tests could be expressed using Makefile rules. > > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Sunday, 22 September 2002 18:45:45 UTC