W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2014

Re: After 5

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:15:36 +0900
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <74066AC9-4105-47A2-8FF5-3ACC598FA7F0@la-grange.net>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Sylvia,

Le 18 sept. 2014 à 17:42, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> a écrit :
> I would actually go further than just modularisation. I would got to
> test-driven specification development.

Yes yes yes… but more difficult to achieve in our daily reality. 

There is precedent for this from an unexpected corner.

    Another interesting approach—often referred to as 
    Test Driven Development—is developing tests specifically 
    to explore issues and problems in the specification. 
    (The OWL Working Group found this approach helpful.) Note 
    that this implies significantly more work as you will need 
    to keep the specification and the tests synchronized.
    — http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/01/test-faq#start
      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/

    See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Feb/att-0071/all.htm

Jeremy Carroll has been instrumental in modifying a lot of the W3C QA Framework by removing anything that would imply too much of a waterfall model. So that was cool even if difficult to swallow. We had to restart our work. Such as this thread.
• RDF Core test driven development and QA Test Doc
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jan/thread.html#0

We summarized too in Test Development Methologies
http://www.w3.org/wiki/TestDevelopmentMethodologies

-- 
Karl Dubost 🐄
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/


Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 09:15:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:10 UTC