Re: Test cases for parseType mis-spelling errors

Hi Art,

Right, I see where you are coming from.

I was expecting that we were doing test cases for the issues that have been 
raised, or that we uncover during our deliberations.  Such test cases need 
formal approval by the WG on a case by case basis as this part of the process by 
which the WG is resolving issues.

Can I suggest that test cases which do not involve WG issues are something you 
can just collect, don't need reviewing on a case by case basis and can be 
reviewed as part of the process of publishing WD's.  Less work, all round, yes?

You have brought up another issue about the scope of the test cases document. 
The charter states as deliverables:

   * publish a set of machine-processable test cases corresponding to
     technical issues addressed by the WG

If you'd like to extend the scope of the test cases document beyond that, 
covering common errors and the like, that will be more work for the WG and 
something we need to discuss.  I think this would be a great thing to do, but I 
guess I have to act as charter policeman a bit here.

Are you envisaging just a few extra test cases here and there, or something 
requiring more significant effort?

Brian


Art Barstow wrote:

> As I noted in:
> 
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0156.html
> 
> I created three test cases that test different permutations
> of mis-spellings of the parseType attribute (e.g. ParseType):
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-parseType/
> 
> Although there is no associated issue for this in the Issue
> Tracking doc, they cover a common error for both new and 
> experienced RDF/XML authors.  Consequently, I offer these TCs
> as candidates for inclusion in the WG's test case repo and
> thus request comments.
> 
> Art
> ---
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 06:40:03 UTC