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

Re: test suite distinctions [was: Re: Feedback on "The Matrix"]

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:04:25 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
cc: "www-qa@w3.org" <www-qa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.43.0202281257490.254-100000@robla350.dev.prognet.com>
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> IMO, there is a big difference between being judgmental about
> decisions in Recommendations and being judgmental about quality of
> products.

Let me quote from the charter:
"The main objective of the Working Group is to foster the development of
usable and useful test suites endorsed by the W3C, which share a common
look and feel"

There's a lot of qualitative statements there.  How is the W3C supposed to
promote this if it can't actually cull out the good from the bad?

> Imagine that W3C issues a Recommendation that makes so many wrong
> choices that nobody uses it. Such Recommendation would have little
> negative impact, if any. Now compare that with the situation where a
> better test suite A is assigned a rating of 10 and a worse test suite
> B is assigned rating of 99. What that is going to do to suite A
> chances of getting acceptance and recognition, especially if W3C
> starts promoting the "winner" and demoting the "looser"?

Clearly, the W3C is going to have to be careful about this.  The fact of
the matter is that working groups are going to have to produce test
suites, and those test suites are going to have to live up to standards.

> Judgment calls are required and expected when designing
> specifications. If rating test materials requires a lot of judgement
> calls, then no rating is better.


Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 16:04:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC