Re: ACTION-139 options for test suite design

Hi Dave,

great, thanks for the update. I will keep
Hi Dave,

thanks a lot for the info. I have changed the ownership of ACTION-139 and
ACTION-145 to you and put the deadline to 13 August. With regards to the 26
July publication we will be delayed for 1/2 a week - I will send a separate
mail about this now.

Best,

Felix

2012/7/19 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

> Hi Felix,
> just to keep you posted, Leroy is now familiarising himself with the
> existing ITS1.0 testsuite and the other scripts you kindly provided and dom
> is looking at the W3C test suite format.
>
> Our broad plan currently is to:
> 1) get the ITS1.0 suite working locally
> 2) do an initial draft of documenting this with the W3C test suite format,
> using your existing ITS1.0 test suite material, and check then the HTML and
> its param variations, as these are a delta on the ITS1.0 test suite.
> 3) select one of the new ITS2.0 data categories start to test out the
> suite. any preferences, perhaps domain?
> 4) look for some earlier implementors willing to help us test out the test
> suite - actually how we 'sign off' on the test suite is something we need
> to discuss how to do - I guess with more people involved it needs to be a
> more transparent, checkable process, but feedback/guidance welcome.
>
> If that goes smoothly we might aim to complete the rest of the basic test
> suite aligned to the 26th Jul draft, say for 13th Aug, so we can then get
> broad feedback on the sign-off process and the documentation and usability
> of the tests with the aim of having something more broadly useful by the
> Prague meeting in September. We anticipate of course that this will be an
> iterative process, especially as the spec evolves.
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/07/2012 18:43, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have started to work on a test suite format for ITS 2.0, based on the
>> ITS 1.0 test suite. Please have a look at the attached test suite file. It
>> covers all tests for ITS 1.0. These are all automatic, that is expected
>> output and real output of a system easily can be compared. The test suite
>> format also allows for manual tests. In that case, the "assertion" element
>> is important to state the assertion.
>>
>> Here is an example test:
>>
>> <testlastModified="2012-07-05"**datacat="localizationnote"**
>> relatedTest="locnote-global-**note"
>>
>>             conformanceType="global"id="**t9"type="automatic"**
>> inputfiletype="xml"
>>             specreference="http://www.w3.**org/International/**
>> multilingualweb/lt/drafts/**its20/its20.html#locNote-**global<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#locNote-global>
>> ">
>> <assertion>Some description of what should happen in the test.</assertion>
>> <inputFile
>>                 location="http://www.w3.org/**International/its/tests/**
>> inputdata/EX-locNote-element-**1.xml<http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/inputdata/EX-locNote-element-1.xml>
>> ">
>> <resultFile
>>                     location="http://www.w3.org/**
>> International/its/tests/test1/**EX-locNote-element-1-result.**xml<http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/test1/EX-locNote-element-1-result.xml>
>> "
>>                     implementation="impl1"/>
>> </inputFile>
>> </test>
>>
>> I think the names speak for themselves. I hope that it will be easy to
>> transform this to the w3c test suite format we discussed today during the
>> call. Comments are very welcome.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> --
>> Felix Sasaki
>> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow