- From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:12:42 +0100
- To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Hi Felix, This is great work. Nevertheless, here are some high-level comments ... I have got the feeling that we currently do not clearly destinguish 1. conformance clause 2. conformance level 3. conformance testing 4. test suite Here's some prose I would use to talk about these concepts (cf. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/conformance/bulletin-conformance.htm) : 1. conformance clause: section in our a document that states which requirement has to be met (e.g. Sec. 7.1.) 2. conformance level: a label attached to a set of conformance clauses 3. conformance testing: verify whether sth. is conformant (e.g. by running an application on a test suite) 4. test suite: used to check whether results produced by an implementation match the expected results Based on these concepts, I would say that what we are currently aiming at is a test suite. Our test suite should provide an initial set of metrics to determine whether or not sth. is conformant (cf. http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xmlconf-20031210.html). For our test suite I suggest that that each test - has an idenfitier - relates to a requirement/conformance clause - describes its purpose in prose - is classified as binary or output - lists the result which is expected from a conformant application/document (e.g. the string "rejected since ITS markup invalid" or an XML file with the contents which should correctly by classified as "to be translated") Felix might know whether we need some kind of official statement that tells people how the test suite is developed/maintained (cf. http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XMLConformanceTS-Process-20031210.html). Coming back to my original "this is great work". From my understanding, Felix already put the most important things in place which would be needed to realize my suggestion. Best regards, Christian -----Original Message----- From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2006 14:32 To: public-i18n-its@w3.org Subject: On conformance Hi all, This is on my action item (or the one of Christian and me) to have tests for various conformance levels. I) Testing a schema for conformance as described in sec. 7.1. Example: <!ENTITY % itsmarkup SYSTEM "its.dtd"> %itsmarkup; <!ELEMENT book ...> <!ATTLIST book ... %att.datacats.attributes;> each ATTLIST has the att.datacats.attributes entity. Purpose: check the statement "The schema must allow the usage of the attribute group att.datacats at every element which is declared in the schema.". - Testing a schema for conformance as described in sec. 7.2. Example: <!ENTITY % itsmarkup SYSTEM "its.dtd"> %itsmarkup; <!ELEMENT book (..., its:documentRules?> <!ATTLIST book ... %att.datacats.attributes;> Purpose: checksthe statement "The schema must allow the usage of the documentRules element in at least one element in the schema". II) Testing interpretation of simple data category attributes as described in sec. 7.1. Example: <book ... its:translate="yes"> <head its:translate="no">...</head> </book> This document can be used to test the statement "The interpretation of data category attributes in instance documents must be conformant to the data category specific default selections described in Section 4.1: Position and Default Selections of Data Categories." for the translatability data category. The implementations of Sebastian, Yves and me would pass the tests because they select the nodes in accordance with the in situ translatability data category definitions. III) Testing Conformance to Dislocated Selection Mechanisms (see sec. 7.2). Example: <book ... its:translate="yes"> <head its:translate="no"> <its:documentRules> <its:documentRule translate="yes" translateSelector="//p/@comment"/> </its:documentRules> ...</head> </book> This document can be used to test the statement "An application which processes ITS elements and attributes must process the selection mechanisms described in Section 3.5: Precedence between Selections". The implementations of Sebastian, Yves and me would pass the tests because they select the nodes in accordance with the insitu and dislocated translatability data category definitions, and they take precedence of selection mechanisms into account. Results of test: - test type I: Result is a list of schemas which encompass the markup for in situ usage of data categories. We already have enough schemas to pass such tests, I would say. But it cannot hurt to have more. - test type II and III: Results are "properly selected nodes". "Properly" can be checked via visualization (as in the case of Sebastians implementation) or as a list of nodes (as in my case, or - I guess - Yves case). Looking forward for your feedback. - Felix
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 17:16:41 UTC