See also: IRC log
cs: decided last week to use BenToWeb extension
model
... separate documents about TCDL in Task Force
... approved global structure of TCDL and formal messaging section
... change of dc:date to internal date, has some implications mentioned on
list
saz: BenToWeb date different?
cs: <missed>
... TCDL 1.1 date has same type as dc:date in DC 2.0
saz: provided use XSI param
cs: restricts DC date, so need to define in
schema and then refer to it in all instances
... same problem with dc:description
saz: is it a problem?
cs: just pointing it out so people don't wonder what xsi:type doing there
<shadi> http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/
saz: document above is complete TCDL spec plus
usage of task force
... but intention to separate them out?
cs: yes
saz: TCDL 2.0 will be standalone spec that can
be used by others
... we'll describe how we use it for our context
... question about rddl file
cs: should point back to task force doc
saz: just want to make clear TCDL is standalone with its own merits
cs: issue of technologies re baseline
... possible to add pointers to exclude parts of a spec from baseline
... is that an issue?
<shadi> http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#baselines
saz: looks pretty flexible
... may adjust how we use it depending on what WCAG does
mc: way to add features to a spec that aren't actually there? e.g. embed
cs: point to a private spec that adds it
mc: pointer clear that it's an extension spec?
cs: reference both
... can add example
saz: sounds good for now, we may need to return
to this as WCAG evolves baseline
... notice in test element you use namespace, but use xlink in
technicalSpec
cs: need to add attribute to technicalSpec?
saz: not now, but may need to come back to this
RESOLUTION: global structure and
formal metadata sections of TCDL approved
... technology section of TCDL approved
<shadi> http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#edef-testcase
cs: test case added dc:description with same xsi:type impact
make requiredTests optional?
saz: yes, should do that
... not clear on expertGuidance
cs: added recently for people who validate test
cases
... optional so we can omit
saz: can imagine providing guidance, but should
be in technique, not developed by task force
... if we need something to explain how test should be evaluated, should be
taken to WCAG WG
mc: is this targeted to evaluators or to test case consumers?
saz: expertGuidance seems targeted to manual
testers
... should be in the technique - test procedure or elsewhere
cs: expertGuidance specific to test case, while
technique might be more general, that can be how we decide when it goes
where
... e.g., information about testing hover changes on a link for color
contrast, which too detailed to appear in technique
saz: example points to need for more test
cases
... let's keep for now, but don't want it to turn into interpretation on
techniques
cs: will add note to TCDL documentation
... suggested to use RDF for files element, but unsure how to do
saz: need ability to add request parameters
cs: can create HTTP headers with name-value pairs
<scribe> ACTION: Christophe to discuss with Johannes using RDF for HTTP, determine if it's needed now, or what future compatibility we may need, and discuss on list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
RESOLUTION: no objections to accepting testCase section with changes discussed in call and pending investigation into file section
<shadi> http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#edef-rules
cs: rules section, pointers to success criteria
etc.
... adding new techniques was only open issue
... examples has one now
RESOLUTION: accept rules section
cs: namespaceMapping had no issues
RESOLUTION: accept namespaceMapping
cs: rulesets had no issues on list
... keep in mind rule sets are XML files, important not to drop exisitng
rules, only add new ones as WCAG draft updated
<Christophe> http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/#chapt-rulesets
cs: in order to keep validity with previously defined tests
RESOLUTION: accept rulesets section
cs: next up is to write the usage document
... have taken TCDL, removed what we're not using in task force
... but it duplicates a lot from TCDL, would like suggestions on making it
shorter (unless we want a long one)
saz: it should be small, simple about
required/optional/usage of elements
... don't need examples etc., that's already in the spec
<scribe> ACTION: Christophe to post a revised usage document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]
saz: uisng EARL pointers in location?
cs: have added extension to allow usage from EARL namespace
saz: can add further elements from EARL namespace?
cs: current extension allows that
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to send example of how to use EARL pointers in TCDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/03-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03]
saz: we should use EARL as much as we can, and will probably want to generate EARL reports from test cases
cs: TCDL now pretty much finalized (pending a couple issues)