- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:04:02 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:49:27 +0200 > > One reason that I oppose the tests that Jeremy has produced, is, as I > had > > previously mentioned but forgot to bring up on the teleconference, is > they > > do not do what they purport to do. > > > > In particular, the first and third tests do not match their description. > > that may very well be my fault as I touched some of Jeremy's descriptions > to document that the 3rd test was not holding (Jeremy please check) > anyway, I can't follow your opposition as we can always reiterate > > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Yeah sure, we can always approve something broken and fix it later. However, why not fix it first? That seems to be a better approach to me. peter
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 22:04:24 UTC