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

Re: TestGL - test material for CR vs for Recs

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:56:47 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021215094529.032a2840@rockynet.com>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

This has been entered into the QAWG Issues List:

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x107

Discussion is welcome, on this mail list.

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 08:25 AM 12/11/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Issue: differentiate between test materials for CR and those for Recs.
>
>As part of the TestGL, we need to ensure that we address or don't preclude 
>the reality that test suites developed at the CR stage may be different 
>than a test suite at the Rec stage.  The objectives for these test suites 
>are often very different - for example: for CR the objective may be to 
>'test the specification', whereas a test suite for a Rec is targeting 
>implementations.  This was the case with XSL-FO.  The tests focused on 
>specific behavior, not entire modules, sections, etc.   It tested for 
>things outside the scope of the specification - since it wanted to see 
>what implementers were doing so that the spec writers could determine if 
>they wanted to refine the behavior, remove it, or make it broader.
>
>Since we advocate having tests for CR exit, we need to consider 
>this.  Thus, we need words in the Introduction and/or CPs to capture the 
>idea that tests for CR may be different and may not need to do all the CPs 
>in TestGL (e.g., maintenance of tests).
>
>I don't know exactly how to capture this in terms of text for the TestGL.
>
>lynne
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 18:54:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:30 UTC