public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org wrote on 20/03/2006 17:12:13: > > Glen, > > > I'm not exactly sure why this should be any different than, for > > instance, tests 1140 and 1143... 1140 tests a required feature, and 1143 > > tests the same required feature but for a different case. They're both > > important and both marked REQUIRED. > > yup, a couple of weeks ago I'd have made it REQUIRED. > > > Just because the assertions are already "covered" by different tests > > doesn't mean that this test isn't checking a piece of required behavior, > > and in fact one which most implementations are currently doing > > incorrectly. > > agreed, 100%! > > > Personally, I'd leave it REQUIRED, since it's not testing an optional > > feature and it covers a case the other tests don't. *shrug* > > In terms of the report, cr='REQUIRED' means we want to demonstrate the > testcase interoperating between 4 implementations before moving the > Core and SOAP specifications from CR to PR, 'OPTIONAL' means 2 > implementations should pass and 'INFORMATIONAL' is a bucket for all > other testcases which have merit. > > If we have another round of testing for CR, then I'd agree > making this 'REQUIRED' adds good value, as it is I think it would > invalidate the CR report for little gain in terms of the spec. > > Paul > +1 David David Illsley Web Services Development MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 17:25:30 UTC