RE: Action Item: Editors to add to a draft s.t. about the output of ITS

Hi Yves, all,

This sound good to me. Just a question to Christian: you wrote "this
schema" in your proposal. If that is important, we can make an XML Schema
instead of the DTD.

Felix

>
> Hi Christian, Felix, all,
>
> To summarize Christian's 'General' section I think it has the following
> concepts:
>
> 1- We have a test suite
> 2- It's not a test suite to claim some kind of certification
> 3- it's in the form of input/out pairs
> 4- We recommend tools to have an option to produce such output so they
> can test
>
> Felix's proposed changes would be
>
> A) No need to have #2 because W3C does not do certification anyway
> B) No need for #4 because the WG has not a consensus in *recommending*
> this
>
> I would agree with A.
>
> I would mostly agree B: any choice of recommending, advising, or saying
> nothing about the fact that tools have to implement the test output
> format to test, is fine with me.
>
> I would also re-word what is left of the 'general' section. The
> 'specific' section looks fine too me. So we would have:
>
> ============
> General:
>
> The ITS Working group provides a conformance test suite to help
> implementors to write applications that support the ITS specifications.
> The test suite provides pairs of input and output files here: <link to
> testsuite>.
>
> Specific:
>
> There are two cases of results of running the test suite:
>
> The implementation fails to pass the test suite. In this case it can be
> asserted that the implementation fails to meet the relevant ITS data
> category.
>
> The implementation passes the test suite. In this case all that can be
> asserted is that the implementation is conformant to that particular
> version of the ITS test suite.
>
> The output format is defined by the following DTD: <link to DTD>
> ============
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>