See also: IRC log
CV: replicate structure from BentoWeb or
... name of technology missing from top-level structure?
CV: we have XHTML currently, but what about other technologies?
CS: what is argument for organizing by SCs?
SAZ: Understanding WCAG2.0 document structured
... 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
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
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..
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]
CV: wait for next week for producing minor
... 1-2 weeks finish up new version of test cases - maybe task force can
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