TSD TF

Overview of core TF documents and pending changes

saz: still need to update review process document

cv: cs seems to have updated his documents already

saz: will send a note to the list as soon as update is done.

cv: perhaps put links on the TF homepage

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2006/tests/

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/

saz: first link is for our internal usage
... second link is official homepage

cv: propose menu bar for the internal usage

saz: think that there is a css template for navigation bar on the right - will check if that is appropiate

<scribe> ACTION: saz will check if it is possible to integrate a navigation bar on the homepage for internal usage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/

saz: cv, please send links that you thinks are suitable for this navigation bar

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/minutes

<CarlosV> Links: Work statement; Using TCDL; Test Review Process; Tests CVS Web Interface

saz: need a form to upload new test samples
... need to fill the "repository contents" link

Tools

saz: put request to systems team reg. wiki
... will put some templates up and provide link
... more difficult task is thing on server side scripting

cv: we need generated content dependant on user input for some test cases

saz: e.g. for sc2.5.1, does the code need to actually run?
... there is a number of technologies that will be supported, but not all / not all kinds of versions

cv: for bentoweb, we are e.g. using jsp running under tomcat

saz: have to talk to systems team about what can be supported
... still not clear if examples have to run on w3c server

do: important for content review to have samples running

mc: samples do not have directly tested

cv: for the review process it would be important to have running testfiles

saz: who should have access? only this group or the public?
... should evaluation tools be able to run test suites directly on w3c server or is it enough that they are downloaded and run somewhere else?

cv: from marketing point of view: would be nice if the run on w3c

saz: can we agree to one technology (e.g. JSP=?

cv: from bentoweb view: jsp is the only technology used

ci: the problem is to reduce the scope of contributions from outside bentoweb

saz: what if someone comes along with ASP?

cv: state on homepage which technologies will be supported

saz: which ones to restrict? we cannot support all...

ci: it's clear that we cannot support ALL technologies, but reducing to only 1 technology could be problematic
... perhaps contributors can provide running samples on own domain

saz: has overview on requirements now, will check with WAI folks and systems group

<scribe> ACTION: saz will check which technologies are supportable and which not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]

Locations

cv: need a conclusion - but how can we solve that?

cv summarizes contents from email discussion

saz: does not have to be a tool that puts in the location

mc: who do we want to inform about location of an error? author? evaluator? user?
... source versus generated content
... there are evaluation tools that take a look at source code if they are able to
... there are cases where it makes sense to look at source, and others where generated content is important

saz: consumer of the location information will be mainly people, not tools
... tools will produce different results (e.g. missing alt - will the location be at the img element or at the alt attribut?)

mc: location of errors can also be in two different files (e.g. inline css and external css)

saz: not sure if we can specify more specific

ci: what about location of error in two different documents (see css example above) - do we support that?

saz: will need more discussion on that on mailing list?

<scribe> ACTION: cv check with cs if there could be a solution within metadata [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03]

Assignment of reviewers for new test cases

cv: process in bentoweb took longer that expected - prefers to postpone evaluation process in TF till next week

saz: next week some people will not be able to attend - so we could make next meeting in two weeks