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

RE: Testable assertion tagging for W3C specifications

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:56:22 -0400 (EDT)
To: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, <scott_boag@us.ibm.com>, <www-qa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205062241070.7280-100000@tux.w3.org>
confined to QA list.

Yes. This is the approach taken by the MUTAT test harness, which takes an RDF
input specifying the tests. That can either be a seperate document pointing
into a test suite, or can be something drawn automatically from a
specification that includes markup to identify each testable points.
MUTAT: http://www.barbwired.com/nadiaweb/tester/

Sean Palmer did some work on extracting such information from WCAG as a spec.
The cost of this is marking up each checkpoint (testable requirement) - in
the WCAG case it was done in the HTML, and in xmlspec it would involve a new
attribute or element or something and a change to the XSLT perhaps.

This gives us the ability to collect test results via a reasonably general
tool. For specs written in XHTML it is a pretty small workload - adding a
class to an element. I assume that it is fairly easy in xmlspec too - the
work comes down to the editors remembering, and thinking about the way they
are writing. I don't have a good way to estimate that.

Chaals

On Mon, 6 May 2002, Paul Cotton wrote:

  >I don't know the cost, and I don't know the benefit.

  Another technique is to have a separate test/conformance document that
  points directly into a technical specification or quotes test from the
  normative document.  For example, see the SOAP 1.2 test/conformance
  document [1].

  [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/11/soap-1.2-conformance.html
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 22:56:30 UTC

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