- From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:23:19 +0900
- To: public-qa-dev@w3.org
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
On Wednesday, Oct 1, 2003, at 03:28 Asia/Tokyo, karl wrote: > do you mean EARL for the report of passing the Test Suite? > or to describe the test? I meant to describe the test. Using as a basis for a Test Description Language, though obviously not its primary purpose, has some appeal, because most if not all of the needed concepts are there already. > We will have to consider something where the success of passing the > test suite is not the fact of being valid. > > Test A -> Has to be always invalid -> Success if invalid > -> Failed if valid > Test B -> Has to be always valid -> Success if invalid > -> Failed if invalid There is actually one more dimension, which is the "regular" result given by the current validator. I suppose we could keep those apart as a list of assertions with the assertor being <http://validator.w3.org/check> a earl:Tool. > So I guess something like > > =================== [snip] the example looks quite good. > ============================= > :validatorResult points to an URI > valid > invalid > nocharset nocharset is included in invalid ;) I'd rather have the result be either valid or invalid, and add a result property stating why it wasinvalid (charset, doctype, etc.) > Are the information about the test itself should be inside the test > itself? At first we could say yes thinking in terms of HTML, but it > will mean we will have to define of describing metadata for each kind > of markup. It might be easier to put this information in the n3 file. I think so too. Besides for some tests we may want to have no test or comment whatsoever inside, to test a specific case. > reference could be one or more reference to understand the context of > the test itself. People who have submitted, references in the specs, > discussions about the tests. Then I would distinguish reference as in "Reference specification(s)" (may be multiple in case of mixed namespaces) and reference as in "see also". > There is quite a huge number of tests in the HTML 4.01 Test Suite as > well. > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/HTML401/ Right. We're definitely not lacking test documents, but we're seriously lacking some organization for them :) Thanks a lot, your examples and suggestions help me a lot. -- olivier
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 22:23:21 UTC