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

Re: QA-related comments on charmod

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:31:05 +0100
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <1079692265.28243.231.camel@stratustier>
Hi DanC,

Le ven 19/03/2004 ŗ 01:02, Dan Connolly a ťcrit :
> I just reviewed the new charmod Fundamentals spec. All of
> my comments are basically QA-related.
> 
> Have you already spotted these issues? 

No, I don't think anybody from the QA IG/WG has made these comments
before, even though the comments that Karl made on the previous version
of the documents had some similar questions about testability and
conformance model:
"For example in the first statement (Testable assertion?), I had
difficulty to define a binary test case, is it possible to have testable
examples for each rule in a separate document."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0022.html

"How do you define test cases for Charmod or in better terms,  
how do you prove its applicability?"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Jan/0015.html

> Do you think they're
> worth fixing?

I do ; I'm not sure if you're asking the opinion of the different IG
participants, of the different WG participants, or an official support
of your comments by the QA WG?

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 05:31:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT