W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: MobileOK Tests, Basic and Pro

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:41:48 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4B88034@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>



I agree too. Think it might usefully be made clear in mobileOK Pro that
it confines itself to black box testing. Making that statement may in
any case make a useful starting point for resolving some likely "grey
area" discussions.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sean Owen
> Sent: 11 February 2008 16:13
> To: MWI BPWG Public
> Subject: Re: MobileOK Tests, Basic and Pro
> 
> 
> For what it is worth I also agree with Alan's interpretation here.
> 
> On Feb 11, 2008 7:21 AM, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es> wrote:
> > I think that we should be clear from the outset whether this is
about
> > black box or white box testing. I had assumed it would be black box
> > and that we simply require evaluation of what is produced. I don't
> > think it's practical to expect that developers even have a formal
> > development process and test records, which are not required by the
> > BPs. Even if records are available, who can vouch for their
veracity?
> > There have been calls for process to be included in the evaluation
> > process and there is a label here in Spain that includes it. But
> > generally certification rests on the product as it is delivered. In
an
> > ideal world I would be in favour of auditing the development process
> > but in practice I also am not in favour of it.
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 16:42:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:57 UTC