- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:15:45 -0400
- To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, public-qa-dev@w3.org
At 12:08 +0900 2002-10-22, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
>Simple (very basic) use of the logval to test the validator would be
>to run both ("should be valid" and "should be invalid") lists
>through it and check "by hand" that the results are correct.
>Refinements could include analysis of the results, diff-ing the
>results for tests run on the prod validator and on the tested
>instance, etc.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>P.S: logvalidator at http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/LogValidator
I think we'll have to verify and check the test.
A test can be an invalid HTML file or a valid HTML file. So we'll
have correct and incorrect file so this is the association of URIs +
Result which will be meaningful.
1=Valid Y= Success
0=Invalid N= Failed
validity Validator Passed
---------------------------------------------------
uri1 0 0 Y
uri2 1 1 Y
uri3 0 1 N
uri4 1 0 N
This Test suite is crucial for the reliability of the HTML validator
for different reasons:
People who own website
TR/ space at W3C, the HTML validator is one of his main tool.
I think a mention, when the validator is released, must be made about
the fact that it has been verified against the Test Suite xxx.
A mini process for TS should be done too. Something light but that
will help to maintain the test files.
--
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
http://www.w3.org/QA/
--- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 17:15:56 UTC