W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > July 2003

CP from TestGL to OpsGL

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:57:18 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030724103058.04110ea0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

On Monday, I want to close the few remaining loose ends for OpsGL text.

Email discussion is invited on this item, as well the preceding ones 
(LC-110 and LC-57).

Crete raw minutes [1]:

>GL6 Promote for conformance testing
>Do we need this guideline since some of this is already in OpsGL. In
>section 1.4 Relationship to other Framework documents,  make it clear where>
>this picks up from OpsGL. Add CP6.1 to OpsGL, CP6.2 already in OpsGL.

See GL6 of TestGL [2].  (Editorial suggestion:  use meaningful name for the 
anchor on GL6, rather than the now-outdated anchor "gl7").  For 
convenience, here is the text of TestGL CP6.1:

>[TestGL] Checkpoint 6.1. Organize conformance testing activities. [Priority 1]
>Conformance requirements: Document a plan to engage vendors of 
>implementations to participate in conformance testing activities.
>Rationale: The conformance testing of various implementations helps 
>improve the interoperability across implementations.
>[Discussion:]  A common practice is to support public discussion group 
>dedicated to the test suite and organize face-to-face meetings for vendors 
>and other interested parties.

Looking at the OpsGL destination [3] for transferring the TestGL CP6.2 [2], 
there are a few options for implementing the Crete decision.

1.)  Add TestGL CP6.1 as a new checkpoint just before OpsGL CP6.5 [4] 
(thereby making the existing CP6.5 become CP6.6).

2.)  Fold it into existing OpsGL CP6.5 [4], e.g., the CP title could 
become, "Checkpoint 6.5.  Promote testing and publication of test 
results."  Then the ConfReq of TestGL CP6.2 would get folded into the 
ConfReq of OpsGL CP6.5.  Etc.

3.)  Forget it -- this is outside of the scope of OpsGL.

Recommendation.  I like #2 best.  OpsGL has enough checkpoints already; 
plus, a new standalone checkpoint might invite criticism about level of 
detail, or scope or...

Discussion?

Regards,
-Lofton.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jun/0044
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-test/#gl7
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/07/qaframe-ops-20030711.html#Gd-QA-process-pub
[4] 
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/07/qaframe-ops-20030711.html#Ck-publish-test-re 
sults
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 12:56:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT