5 Sep 2006


See also: IRC log


Shadi, CarlosI, Sandor, Vangelis, Chris, CarlosV, Tim, Christophe, Michael
CarlosV, Christophe


Follow-up review of integration tools and CVS

CV: replicate structure from BentoWeb or not?
... name of technology missing from top-level structure?

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Aug/0040.html

CV: we have XHTML currently, but what about other technologies?

CS: what is argument for organizing by SCs?

SAZ: Understanding WCAG2.0 document structured by SC..
... two ways of grouping (1) by technologies, or (2) by SC

CV: can filter anyway by metadata

SAZ: doesn't feel strongly one way or another, but OK if currently structured by technology

MC: no strong feelings, just so long as metadata contains relevant information, basic organization doesn't matter..

CS: in BentoWeb, metadata not big XML file, but file for each test case

CV: could metadata file have different name from test file?

SAZ: What about file extensions?

CV: depend on technology..

SAZ: What about granularity (spread out resources)?

CV: has to do with server issues

SAZ: now explained that tests grouped by technologies, so there isn't a large

group of them, makes sense..

CV: test files can be reused for different SCs/techniques, so need to enforce naming conventions
... agree on structure for now.. close topic?

Resolution: agree to accept naming convention and directory structure from BentoWeb

CV: clarification to group tests by main technology..

CS: also we will use newer version of naming convention

Follow-up review of TCDL

CV: new draft of TCDL with example sent, so far no comments

CS: ruleset description not included, also want to add description of language called RuleSetXML

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Aug/att-0046/BenToWeb_TCDL_W3C_Submission_DraftD.html

CS: current format too verbose or descriptive, that's why example added to use only required attributes and elements

CV: what do others (besides BenToWeb) think of document?

CR: looks good to me (haven't gone over it in detail)

SAZ: discussion on mailing list re: disabilities section - any follow-up?

CS: requires a lot of changes

CV: issue is how to define disability types, not feasible to incorporate right now
... do we accept current version of TCDL as current description?

CI: plans to incorporate whole TCDL language or subset of it?

CS: TCDL has many optional sections, so use all of it is quite a lot of work, so don't

need to subset it if don't use options

CI: If we want to use it for WCAG, need to subset it..

CS: questions are validation process used in test suite itself..

CI: haven't discussed problems separating accessibility and other issues,

not in scope of this task force.. will WCAG WG work on this issue?

CV: related to how we validate it, since we need user feedback

CI: are we going to define WCAG questions?

CV: we're just talking about test cases - different issue

we decide we need feedback from users

CI: we're going to confuse people asking for schema related to WCAG2?..

need to just cover use cases - just use subset?

CI: example, "test case mode" define "one expert" - what kind of expert - needs to go

through WCAG WG?

CS: it's how we in task force review test cases

SAZ: how is test case evaluated, or how test case is developed?
... Only take vocabulary we need, don't take BenToWeb specific info..

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Aug/att-0046/TCDL_TSDTF_sc3.1.1_l1_001.xml

we may need to look at other elements to consider adoption?

SAZ: may look at CS's minimal example, and then start looking to add to that to match our needs
... description and purpose should come from WCAG in this example - maybe need smaller language?

CS: description - description of test materials and purpose - purpose of test itself

CV: per test case, for every technique there would be many test cases

SAZ: where is mapping to WCAG SC?

CS: In rule section

SAZ: start by minimal example, and then add to it (taking from TCDL) - another approach?
... goal is minimal set of vocabulary that can describe our tests, we're opening up too many questions?
... opening up scope of task force?

CV: we should be careful in reviewing/disregarding elements, "test mode" is relevant element

SAZ: BenToWeb person to send examples of metadata?

CV: Sure, they're on line..

SAZ: maybe some smaller examples?

CS: the example provided is from scratch, and could be real

CV: ask eveyone to review in detail, and comment on mailing list, to streamline TCDL,

by next week

SAZ: Can people spend more time reviewing this in detail this week? - answer is yes

<scribe> ACTION: non-BenToWeb people to review current draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: CS to complete current draft with missing sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]

Start of test production phase

CV: wait for next week for producing minor examples
... 1-2 weeks finish up new version of test cases - maybe task force can

review them?

CV: maybe can review what is public from BenToWeb? - starting point

SAZ: makes sense - close several test samples this way, and test our structure and metadata, and process within task force

CV: in two weeks can have some examples ready

SAZ: next week finalize TDCL

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: CS to complete current draft with missing sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: non-BenToWeb people to review current draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/09/05 21:48:57 $