- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:51:20 -0700
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org, sandro@w3.org
At 09:34 AM 1/7/2004 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >Brian > >Thanks for butting in - your clarification helps a lot. IMO, the intent >of the checkpoint is as you state: >>[[ >>Checkpoint 1.3. The testing approach to be used is documented. >> >>NOTE: A single uniform testing approach may not be appropriate for all >>aspects of a specification. The testing approach may define different >>approaches for different aspects, for example, different approaches may >>be used for testing document syntax and for testing document >>processing. The structure of a specification may give useful clues to >>the different kinds of tests that would be useful. >>[Priority 1] >>]] > >We just didn't do a good job at writing it. Also, please see my just-sent comments -- the normative "Conformance Requirements" better reflect our current thinking, than the non-normative CP statement. >We appreciate your comments as well as Jeremy's - Please keep in mind that >the TestGL is still under development - many changes are being made. This indeed is the source of a lot of our debate -- our current draft only partially reflects resolved issues from recent meetings and telecons. (A new draft due in the next week or two.) Cheers, -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 09:51:40 UTC