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

RE: testability definition

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:36:20 -0600 (MDT)
To: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0209062124120.22546-100000@measurement-factory.com>

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

> True, this is an assumption I'm making. Do you have an example of
> the behavioral W3C spec that has non-enumerable input space (of
> power of continuum)?

SpecGL is, primarily, not about existing W3C specs but future specs so
existing examples have little value.

> You don't need to build and execute a process in order to prove that the
> process can be built.

I do not need to prove that the process can be built. I need to apply
an existing process to an existing implementation or document. I do
not care if a spec is testable in some abstract way. I need to test
real implementations using real tools that detect real spec
violations.

What good does it make to know that a spec is testable if I cannot
test an implementation, and I cannot pay somebody to test it for me?!

> In fact some languages specs (like Java) were proven this way
> (although it took ~3 years for Java).

I do not need to prove that Java abstraction is a complete(?)
language identical to a Turing machine. I need to prove that a given
Java interpreter complies with Java specs. A much more practical task.

Alex.

-- 
                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 23:36:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT