- From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:35:02 +0200
- To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- CC: "Kovatsch, Matthias" <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>, Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "J. Alan Bird" <abird@w3.org>
[jumping in after having read Jonathan's latest mails on this - I think there's been some confusion] On 5/25/2016 10:30 AM, Dave Raggett wrote: > Just to note that while WGs are required to produce test suites and to > publish implementation reports for transitioning from Candidate > Recommendation to Proposed Recommendation, WGs do not normally work on > interoperability testing. They do - the "rule of thumb" is that the implementation report has to show "two interoperable implementations of each feature" in a spec - that's "interoperability testing" (at least to some extent) What WGs really don't work on is *conformance* testing - because that requires a much more extensive test suite > The idea of the test suites is more oriented towards demonstrating > that the specifications are implementable, and thus the test suites > are required to cover all of the testable features in a spec. That's all correct and part of the demonstration of 'interoperable implementations" for each feature > This is why the diagram shows the WG producing specs and test suites.
Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 11:35:13 UTC