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

Re: Glossary

From: Vijay Sikka <vsikka@nirixa.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:42:30 -0700
Message-ID: <3CF799E6.3090307@nirixa.com>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
CC: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
I agree.  See my earlier note regarding checking against the 
requirements in the standard as key in conformance checking.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002May/0057.html

On a separate note:
Should we include definitions for test types in QA Glossary?  Any thoughts?
Functional Test
Blackbox Test
Whitebox Test
Load/Stress Test
Regression Test

Vijay Sikka
-------------
Founder and Principal,
Nirixa, Inc.
303 Almaden Boulevard 6th Floor
San Jose, CA - 95110
408.998.7844 (main)
408.998.7845 (fax)
www.nirixa.com
vsikka@nirixa.com


Mark Skall wrote:

>
> To clarify, anything that checks for conformance to a standard, 
> whether it's syntactic or semantic checking, is a test suite, in my 
> opinion.  The key is that it must check against requirements in the 
> standard.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> At 07:29 AM 5/31/02 -0400, Sandra Martinez wrote:
>
>> The HTML validator by it self, in our definition, will not be 
>> considered a test suite  but a validation tool that could be used as 
>> part of the test procedures to check conformance to the standard 
>> (validation) , in that way it will be considered encompassing in the 
>> test suite definition. This is my understanding.
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  At 04:33 PM 5/30/2002 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> At 01:37 PM 5/30/02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2002, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > At 22:20 -0400 2002-05-23, Mark Skall wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >I'm not sure where the "validation" definition came from. Tying
>>>> > >validation to a document is way too restrictive.   The 
>>>> definition we
>>>> > >usually use is "the process necessary to perform conformance 
>>>> testing
>>>> > >in accordance with a prescribed procedure and an official test
>>>> > >suite."
>>>> >
>>>> > In a case of the HTML validator you don't have a Test Suite.
>>>>
>>>> "HTML validator" is, essentially, a "Test Suite", isn't it? I know
>>>> that the current definition does not imply that but it should be
>>>> possible to have a single term that describes all validators,
>>>> including test suites. "Validator"? It should not matter, for the
>>>> purpose of the glossary, whether we are validating compliance with a
>>>> protocol, a markup language, or whatever...
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought -- correct me if this is wrong, Mark or Sandra -- that 
>>> NIST used "test suite" in an encompassing way, that would include an 
>>> HTML validator.  However the Glossary definition of "test suite" 
>>> doesn't seem to imply that.
>>>
>>> -Lofton.
>>
>>
>> Sandra I. Martinez
>> National Institute of Standards and Technology
>> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970,
>> Gaithersburg, Md. 20899
>>
>> (301) 975-3579
>> sandra.martinez@nist.gov
>>
>
> ****************************************************************
> Mark Skall
> Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
> Information Technology Laboratory
> National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970
>
> Voice: 301-975-3262
> Fax:   301-590-9174
> Email: skall@nist.gov
> ****************************************************************
>
>
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 11:39:03 UTC

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