See also: IRC log
SAZ: Testable Statement - testcase and
requirement had some discussio
... Looked at maximum cardinality to be added later
... Some question if we really need it, and we need a Test case description language really
... If no new objections like to take it forward
CI: Some concerns over Cardinality already sent
... reduces interopability if you can't compare testcases and requirements
SAZ: Main issue is missing TCDL which limits
the interopability to say things are the same - we can get by without that
and even in the worst case you can still work with the general superclass of
... We hope people would be more consistent and a TCDL will arrive in the future
CI: Could we force some interop by requiring a
... It's more difficult to agree on testcases, especially if they are not public
SAZ: There is an ambiguity if you have testcase
and requirement in same assertion - where does it apply to?
... If we have to create logic to resolve that then we create TCDL.
CI: I don't see why we need any resolution
SAZ: If you have testcase "Is ALT?" and requirement "WCAG 1" what does it mean has been passed or failed?
JK: Even more complicated if you have multiple testcases.
SAZ: We resolved to have just one testable statement per result, so you'd have seperate test statements for each test and requirement
CI: I see the problem, but I think the current proposal suffers the same problem, the requirement failure/pass is really down to the tests.
JK: There is no 1-1 relationship between
requirements and testcases so you may need 2 testcases to fulfil a
... Subject passes testcase 1, subject fails testcase 2, subject fails Requirement X
... The test heirachy needs to be defined outside currently
SAZ: Need to remember the TCDL is needed
... Modularisation is a good approach
... This isn't last chance
... Any objections at putting into next editors draft
RESOLUTION: Take proposal - testable statement subclass into editors draft
SAZ: No objections to the proposal yet, I want
to do some re-arranging and re-describing
... Any comments?
SAZ: Want to seperate out byte and char from the Snippet - prefer to have byteSnippet and charSnippet
JL: Seperating makes sense if it's clearer for people
SAZ: Seem to be no Objections
<chaals> [works for me]
<scribe> ACTION: JL reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006Aug/0010.html particularly points 1 and 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-er-irc]
RESOLUTION: Incorporate pointers into 1.0 schema
SAZ: Should now have complete schema for next draft
SAZ: We should publish by september, question is LC or not?
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say not last call, given the elapsed time
SAZ: Need to get everyone to look at it really hard check all everything once we get the status, then on the Telcon of the 20th Sept we decide what's up.
CMN: I'd suggest we don't go LC on the first
draft after a year
... good if we could get a draft out earlier than Sept, as early as next week even, and then aim to get LC in 6 weeks
SAZ: Are you proposing Mondays version can go
out for publication?
... Any concerns?
CMN: To Group on monday, group can review for a week, then take to TR a week later
SAZ: When would deadline be for objections, Friday 8th?
CMN: Friday 8th works for me
SAZ: Will everyone be able to review editors
draft next week?
... plan to publish WD for 8th or so, then continue review to prepare for LC month later or so
CMN: More like 6 to 8 weeks maybe
SAZ: Also need to look at EARL Guide
CV: Can hopefully look to do some updates next week
SAZ: JK has sent me an updated HTTP RDF draft
which we also need to publish soon
... Preferably publish it as a note as the same time as we publish schema
... No telcon for 2 weeks
... See you all in 3 weeks!!