- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:48:40 -0700
- To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
- Cc: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> In any case I cannot see that as an argument to kepp the metadata separate, > if the tests change, they remain one test; passsing them through a process > does not produce more tests or more metadata. Actually, in the interest of reducing the number of divergent implementations, it can be better to turn such "problematic" tests into multiple tests. That also lets "legacy" behaviors (such as "the way IE4 does it", just an example) be tested for in their own right -- sometimes they're essential conformance points for products, though one hopes not for W3C (which should flag all conformance bugs). So for example, a test expecting one outcome turns from a positive test to a negative test ... and a new test, with the "correct" outcome, is created. For the original test, only the metadata changes ... unless it's being used in a profile that tests against an alternate conformance point (not limited to earlier versions of the W3C conformance statements). If only metadata changes for that original test, then it's possible for the process to include audit-based self-checks. But if changing interpretations means changing everything about a test ... auditability gets lost, and along with it goes a key part of QA process integrity. - Dave
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 13:50:58 UTC