W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > October 2001

RE: [www-qa] Re: Conformance and Implementations

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:14:44 +0200
Message-Id: <p05101000b7fb47e080c2@[10.1.2.2]>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 10:07 -0600 2001-10-23, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>>  It's why the test cases should be built by the WG or by an
>>  external resource WITH the WG at the earliest stage of a REC (I
>>  mean WD). Test cases are useful tools for developpers, but there
>>  are also an easier way to write a clear and unambiguous
>>  recommendation.
>
>I do not believe that stating requirement X twice (once in the
>recommendation text and once in the test case embedded in that
>recommendation) will somehow make the recommendation less ambiguous.
>IMO, this will only increase the number of ambiguities as some test
>cases will sure contradict the text!

It was not my point !!!???


>I believe it is better to have _one_ authoritative requirement. Since
>most of us are better at reading human languages rather than RDF or
>XML, that requirement should be formulated in a human language. Test
>cases should be non-normative illustration whether they are developed
>by the WG or not.
>
>Having test cases helps improving documentation quality. Having
>embedded test cases has a negative side-effects that are easy to avoid
>by separating test cases from the authoritative documentation.
>
>Alex.


-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 12:17:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:28 UTC