Re: Implementation report (Was: Re: Tests)

Hi Christian, all

Unfortunately I cannot be on the call. It would be great if you could
agree on a concrete wording proposal which I can just paste in the report.

I have only one requirement: the proposal must be clear what format will
be used *during the CR phase*. This report is for the time being only
about the CR phase planning. So I would change "intends to" to "will" in
"the WG intends to compare the results (given in the format mentioned
above)" and add "during the CR phase".

Cheers,

Felix

Lieske, Christian wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Slightly modified wording for "debug format"
> 
>> for each input document a document which captures the expected
> processing result in a format which a
>> conformant implementation may find useful to produce
> 
> Furthermore, we may talk a little different about "interoperability
> tests". A possibility I see
> 
>> The WG intends to conduct further tests for ITS Markup Declarations
> and ITS Processing Expectations.
>> With regard to the latter, the WG intends to compare the results
> (given in the format mentioned above)
>> of the implementations of Conformance Type 2.
> 
> Cheers,
> Christian
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:23 PM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Implementation report (Was: Re: Tests)
> 
> 
> Hi Yves,
> 
> Yves Savourel wrote:
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> The implementation report look good to me. I have only one question.
> The second numbered bullet of the section "Test Suite" says:
>> "for each input document a result document in the debug format which a
> conformant implementation needs to produce."
>> I'm wondering if this is correct: We do not specify any debug format
> in our conformance criteria, therefore a conformant does not
>> *need* to produce this, I think. I realize that generating that output
> is quite helpful for testing the implementations, but here it
>> sounds like a requirement.
>>
>> I'm not sure how to phrase this, maybe something like "for each input
> document a result document in the debug format which a
>> conformant implementation may find useful to produce", or "for each
> input document a result document in the debug format used to
>> easily verify conformant implementations".
> 
> you are right, my first formulation was misleading. How about: "for each
> input document a result document in the debug format. These result
> documents will be used to test during the CR phase whether an
> implementation is conformant".
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Felix
> 
>> Cheers,
>> -yves
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:38 PM
>> To: Yves Savourel
>> Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
>> Subject: Implementation report (Was: Re: Tests)
>>
>> Hi Yves, all:
>>
>> Many thanks for updating the page!
>>
>> Yves Savourel wrote:
>>> One more note on the tests:
>>>
>>> The structure is as follow:
>>>
>>> The 'inputdata' directory contains the source files, 'expected' 
>>> contains the expected result files, and each 'testN' directory holds
> the result for the implementation N.
>> I like that idea.  I have updated the implementation report
> respectively, see
>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/ImpReport.html .
>>
>> Important is the sentence "The following features will be tested for
> all data categories:". The two bullet points take your proposal
>> above into account.
>>
>> Please have a look at the document and give me feedback. It would be
> good to get feedback until Monday night (Japanese time), since
>> I will be on travel starting Tuesday, and we need to write the CR mail
> on Friday.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 04:21:10 UTC