- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:25:39 +0000
- To: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-qa@w3.org, www-dom-ts@w3.org, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, dom@w3.org, wchang@nist.gov, tmichel@w3.org, mary.brady@nist.gov, bradp@microsoft.com
Mary Brady wrote: > Many of the complexities of the test harness stem from dealing with other > technologies, and how each implementation deals with > them. I felt that Ian's talk over-emphasized testing just one technology at a time. If the problems occur in using two or three technologies or two or three specifications together then test suites should cover those cases. This is particularly important where it is not clear which spec covers the area since we can get implementorA saying "reading spec A we do it this way", and implementorB sayig "reading spec B we do it this other way". I think a test case is a good way of banging the heads of WG-A and WG-B together (While I have phrased this in my issue-driven mindset, I think the point is good for conformance testing too - the goal is interoperable implementations in that case) Jeremy
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 11:26:20 UTC