W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Testability again (was: [QA Review] CharMod for the Web 1.0: Fundamentals WD 25 Feb 2004)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:09:40 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

[I have added the I18N IG to this discussion.]

At 00:11 04/04/12 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>* Karl Dubost wrote:
> >This is a review of
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-charmod-20040225
> >C001   [S]   [I]   [C]   Specifications,  software and content MUST NOT
> >assume that there is a one-to-one  correspondence between characters
> >and the sounds of a  language.
> >
> >===> How do you test that for each implementations [S][I][C]? What will
> >be the three tests that you will be able to create to demonstrate the
> >implementability of this during the CR period where you will seek for
> >implementation? If you can't design a test for it, it means that your
> >assertion is not testable, therefore not implementable.
>I am confused. How is a "test" relevant in this regard? You would test
>a specification by reading it which would not involve the creation of
>tests. Maybe you could point at the tests the QA WG created for SpecGL
>to give an idea how to design such tests for Charmod? It also seems that
>in order to create a test for software or content one would need an
>interface to these things, an API or a specific document format, none of
>which is defined in Charmod and hence cannot be directly tested through
>Charmod. My understanding is rather that specifications that require
>Charmod conformance are responsible to demonstrate interoperability. You
>would not create standalong charmod conforming software or content.

Usually, yes. But one can imagine implementations or
content that don't have a spec, but still conform.

>I also wonder what the QA WG means by "testable", my LC comment
>   http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/02/cr-issues.html#x30
>still appears to be unresolved. This makes communication quite
>difficult, I can hardly argue with you whether certain things are
>testable if we disagree about the definition of "testable".
>Based on your comments I would say that I strongly disagree with your
>definition. As far as I am concerned, human inspection of a spec makes
>it possible to determine with complete reliability (!) whether the spec
>adheres to Charmod or not (minor issues aside). Much like with SpecGL.
>So, what am I missing here?

According to a discussion I had with Karl last week, this is not
his issue. It is much more with the word 'assume'.

> > I think one of
> >the problems comes from the "assume".
> >       Imagine a language where you have "a one-to-one correspondence 
> between
> >characters and the sounds of a  language". If the software implements
> >only this language because it's a specific use for only this language.
> >It means that it's not conformant to C001, even if this software does
> >the correct thing.
>No, you cannot know and assume the same thing at the same time. If you
>know that the only language you implement has this characteristic then
>you do not assume this characteristic and are thus conformant.

This is an interesting way to explain things. What I told Karl
was that we would be perfectly happy if a software written for
only one specific language would not be conformant with Charmod.
The WWW, and Charmod, are in essence multilingual.

In our discussion, my understanding was that Karl didn't like
the word 'assume' because it's too vague.

> >*KD-004
> >C008   [S]   [I]   Specifications and implementations of sorting and
> >searching algorithms SHOULD accommodate all characters in Unicode.
> >
> >===> What's happening if you implement all western languages but not
> >asian because the context of applications do not make it necessary. Do
> >I still have to implement everything? If not how can I be conformant?
>If you have fully understood and carefully weighted the implications of
>the deviation, you may deviate. This is covered by RFC 2119 which is
>properly referenced on Charmod.

The 'SHOULD' here provides an escape hatch, but I don't think
that this is the important part of C008 with respect to Karl's
comment. A software may do high-quality sorting of only the Latin
characters, and sort the rest just e.g. by Unicode code point.
What it may not do is to blow up when getting a non-Latin

Regards,     Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 00:10:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:35 UTC