- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:47:28 -0600
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 13:39 +0100, Hausenblas, Michael wrote: > [...] the TS is a set of necessary, but not necessary and > sufficient conditions. A conformance test suite serves as both necessary and sufficient conditions. > ... as far as I understand it - conformance > testing (in finite time) wouldn't be possible at all ;) For open data formats/protocols, indeed, conformance testing is quite impractical. "Conformance testing" makes the most sense for physical standards like "must withstand 20 lbs of force", and when some conformance testing lab is the very definition of what the standard means, like "UL listed". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories I suppose there are some cases when conformance testing makes sense for software; I think device drivers can be "Microsoft certified" or something if (and only if) Microsoft's certification labs checks them out. But for typical W3C interoperability specs, a "conformance test suite" is an absurd notion indeed. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2007 14:47:35 UTC