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

Re: Testing Guidelines plan

From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:09:39 -0400
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE9281BCC.5FAE1C80-ON85256BDD.0061AB08@lotus.com>

I don't plan to be in the teleconference tomorrow, so I'll send along
these observations:

VAGUENESS (Checkpoints 1.5, 4.6):
Ideally, the specs have no vagueness. Test developers can identify
the "known" areas of vagueness, but must synchronize with errata.
Scanning the documents to detect vagueness and cataloging feedback
sent to the spec editors are two different things; which would this
checkpoint espouse?

TARGET AREAS (Guideline 2):
Is this like the product classes, profiles, or modules that we have
been discussing in Spec Guidelines? If so, the terminology should
be aligned.

DIMENSIONS OF VARIABILITY (Checkpoints 4.7, 4.8, 4.9):
One could produce a test suite that just tests the bottom level, or
no options, or no extensions, but one must make the test suite
adaptable to the discretionary choices.

REPEATABILITY (Checkpoints 4.2, 4.3, 4.10, 5.2, 5.7, 5.8, 7.2):
Any published results should contain sufficient information about
the test conditions so that an independent lab can set up the
same conditions, run the same suite, and (ideally) get the same
results for the same test subject.
.................David Marston
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2002 14:12:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:27 UTC