W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [comment] XMLHttpRequest Object - testable assertions

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:35:54 +0000 (UTC)
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0604261829140.21459@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:18:37 +0200, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:
> > It would be good that someone of the WG review all assertions and their
> > testability, maybe the opportunity to create a proto-testcase.
> > If the test case is difficult to design, there might be a problem.
> 
> How about non-testable assertions? Like requirements on WGs, 
> specifications, etc.?

There's no a-priori reason why you can't test those. For example if the 
spec says "A specification that refers to this specification MUST include 
the word 'pineapple'." then you can easily test to see if other 
specifications are conforming to this requirement or not -- just search 
for the word "pineapple".

Similarly with WGs -- "Working groups MUST release announcements 
proclaiming the existing of the invisible pink unicorn every three weeks." 
is eminently testable.

This doesn't mean that assertions regarding working groups or 
specifications are in any way useful. Much like requirements on authors, 
they tend to be mostly wishful thinking in practice.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 18:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT