- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:07:48 -0400
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, "'WAI ER IG List'" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Yes, we need the binding. Can you suggest a method of binding the tool specific test to the standard test suite? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org> To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "'WAI ER IG List'" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:21 PM Subject: RE: EARL Testcase > hi chris, hi all, > > this is indeed my problem when trying to construct an "EARL Wrapper > Tool". how does one aggregate data from different sources? > > my thought is that the best solution would be to have the earl:testcase > element bind a tool specific testid (for example > http://vendor-a.org/tool/tests/#check-for-alt) to a testcase of a test > suite which all sources (tools or humans) in the collection are testing > against. in this case it would be for example > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-text-equivalent **. > > when aggregating (or exchanging) the results, one could compare the > assertions conducted on the testcase (marked by ** in the paragraph > above) and make more comprehensive statements (for example two tools > can't tell pass/fail, one tool says it failed, etc). the real tests > conducted (for example http://vendor-b.org/tool/tests/#check-alt-sanity) > become secondary but interesting algorithms could be based on using the > earl:mode and the earl:assertedBy. > > any thoughts on this? > > regards, > shadi >
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 14:08:59 UTC