Re: questions/comments on my first test sample

Hi Tim,

Below are a few quick responses, in advance of a longer discusion tomorrow.

At 15:47 23/06/2008, Tim Boland wrote:

>Some Comments/Questions on content-structure-separation-programmatic_001:
>------------beginning of comments-------------------
>Do we want to give advice as to how to indent properly (upon 
>failure, it may be nice to show
>how to do it properly - I think this is referenced in TestFAQ 
>Question 9 - "How Should Tests
>Report Their Outcome? - )

Where do you think there needs to be indentation?

>I ran metadata file through W3C validator and got "well-formed XML - 
>1 warning", and testfile
>was "valid XHTML1.0 strict"

The W3C validator doesn't validate TCDL 2.0.
Please see the last question in
about validation.

>Still have a question about use of "resources" ater "testfile" in 
>directory path (but may be
>accessing older copy of metadata file)

Could you clarify what you mean by this?
As far as I can see, this test sample doesn't use anything in the 
"resources" directory.

>Still have a question about id attribute under "test case 
>description" tag - don't see that
>in metadata file  (but may be
>accessing older copy of metadata file)

Are you referring to the id attribute on the testCaseDescription element?
It is definitely there.

>In metadata document, "expected result" is supposed to occur before 
>"rule" but after "rules" -
>an attribute of "rules" - but "expectedresult" occurs as an 
>attribute of "locations" in the
>metadata file  (but may be accessing older copy of metadata file)

Thanks for pointing this out; the metadata description is out of sync 
with the TCDL 2.0 schema.
The expectedResult attribute is really an attribute of locations.

>Still would be nice to have the title of the technique rather than 
>"F43" (no semantic meaning,
>and numbers could change, but maybe this has
>been discussed already?

Yes, we decided to handle this in the HTML view, by having the XSLT 
that generates HTML out
of the metadata pull in the technique/failure title.
I still need to work on that.

>Still would be nice to have the title of the success criterion 
>rather than "sc1.3.1" (no semantic meaning,
>and numbers could change, but maybe this has
>been discussed already?

We no longer refer to success criteria by their number.
Where did you find "sc1.3.1"?

Best regards,


>-----------------------end of comments--------------------------------
>Thanks and best wishes
>Tim Boland NIST

Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.


Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 15:53:12 UTC