It had occurred to me that scoping test cases was likely to be tricky; clearly, test cases that address issues are desirable, but where to stop? I had formed a view that if someone cared enough to actually create some test cases for a non-issue, then they were probably worth including. On reflection, I'd say: if someone cares enough to produce the test cases, and at least 2 (?) others feel they're important enough to review, then they're probably worth including. I think that could be done without incurring lots of WG effort. I would request, however, that the test cases themselves include (brief) text that makes it clear what they are actually testing. (Many already do, but some don't.) #g -- At 11:35 AM 10/20/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >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? ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------Received on Sunday, 21 October 2001 08:16:32 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:08 EDT