W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > December 2002

TestGL: issues to discuss on Monday's telconf- Dec 9th

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 02:37:59 -0800
Message-ID: <37DA476A2BC9F64C95379BF66BA2690206075091@red-msg-09.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Here is the list of issues for the TestGL draft [1] that I would like to
discuss on Monday's Dec 9th teleconf.

 

The goal is to define what is critical to fix (other then some English
wording and broken links:-)) before TestGL goes to FPWD. Editors might
follow up with additional issues as they didn't have a chance to review
the last minute changes.

 

1.	Are the Priorities definition in the Introduction acceptable for
FPWD?
2.	Are the definitions in the local Glossary acceptable?
3.	Are Ck1.5 - 1.9 in sync with the specification Guidelines?
4.	Is the Gd2 clear? Do checkpoints 2.1 and 2.2 verify the quality
of the test suite structure?
5.	Is the intent of the Gd3 clear? Is definition of the testing
methodology term is clear? Was the rewording of the checkpoints
appropriate?
6.	Gd4: Does the Gd4 verify the test framework quality? Are Ck 4.8
- 4.10 in sync with the specification guidelines?
7.	Gd5. Is it reasonable to treat Results reporting as part of the
Test Framework?
8.	Are the Gd6 & Gd7 acceptable for the FPWD? - is the intent
clear?
9.	Review Conformance clause
10.	General issue: do the checkpoints scare potential test suite
implementers? 
11.	General issue: did the rewording help to target the checkpoints
on the quality of the test materials/test development/testing plan?

 

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/12/qaframe-test-20021205.html 

Thanks

 
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 05:38:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:12 GMT