- From: Paul Walsh <paul@segala.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:59:45 +0000
- To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Cc: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
I also agree :) On 11 Feb 2008, at 16:41, Jo Rabin wrote: > > > > 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. > > > ---- Paul Walsh Segala, CEO Web site http://segala.com Blog http://segala.com/blog Twitter http://twitter.com/PaulWalsh Mobile +44 (0)7738 758 848
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 17:00:43 UTC