W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > December 2004

Re: Test FAQ: draft for discussion

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:50:17 -0800
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <41C08769.5040208@sun.com>

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:

>Le mer 15/12/2004 ŗ 09:44, Patrick Curran a ťcrit :
>>Attached is a brief draft for a "Test FAQ" for discussion at tomorrow's 
>Excellent start! I like the tone and style a lot. My only quick comment
>is that the FAQ mostly works also for interop testing, and that as such
>the two 1st questions should be reworded to take it into account, e.g.:
>* "What is conformance testing, and how does it differ from other kinds
>of testing?"
>-> "What is the difference between conformance testing, interoperability
>testing and other kinds of testing?"
>* add a paragraph in the 1st question defining interoperability testing:
>"Interoperability testing focuses on finding interoperability issues
>between implementations of a given specification. It complements
>conformance testing in so that it can also detect defects in
>specifications - ambiguities, inaccuracies, etc. As such, it is usefully
>conducted in parallel with the specification development." 
>* in "Why is conformance testing important?", add an introductory
>paragraph like
>"While interoperability testing happens more and more often in W3C to
>help assess the Proposed Recommendation entrance criteria, very few
>groups have been working on conformance testing."
I've incorporated this feedback into the next draft.

>Another possible point of discussion: should this be a simple document
>in QA WG space or be published as a Working Group Note? I guess I have a
>preference for a Working Group Note, given that this incorporates some
>of the important work we've been doing in this area. In this case, I
>guess it should supersede testGL on the TR page. The main drawback is
>that it reduces the ease to add/change questions, which may be an issue
>for a FAQ...
I agree (both with the preference for a Note and with the regret that 
this will make the document less dynamic). Perhaps we could link it to 
the Wiki (as you suggest below) as a means of extending it dynamically. 
Periodically we could extract useful stuff from the Wiki, add it to the 
Note, and issue a revision?

>Things I would like to see added during the polishing phase: links to
>the Wiki for further discussions of some of the items; more links to the
>examples given in the text; links to the documents developed by the CSS
>and SVG WG on developing test suites. But that said, I think keeping the
>document somewhat short should be one of design goals.
If we're careful I think we can meet both goals: keep this document 
short and "chatty", but use lots of links to other documents to provide 
the background material that people may need to fully understand what 
we're saying.

I agree that we do need to provide links, particularly to examples.

Thanks for the feedback...

Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 18:49:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:34 UTC