- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:15:11 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Le 06 janv. 2004, à 22:07, Jeremy Carroll a écrit : > I still read the QA docs as obstructive of test driven spec > development. still not :))) > This is a nice summary: > >> Agreed for test driven development. >> * Propose a feature > > (also " or consider an issue") yes you are right. >> * Make a test >> * Write the spec >> * Create a consolidated TS that will help external world. QA Framework is on the fourth star. not the second one. > Test GL: > >> [[ > >> Checkpoint 1.3. Analyze the structure of the specification, > partition > >> it as appropriate, and determine and document the testing approach > to > >> be used for the test suite as a whole and for each partition. > >> [Priority 1] > >> ]] > > This checkpoint defines method - the testing approach is determined as > a result of analysing the specification. > That might not be what the QAWG intends but that is what the current > WD and editors draft both say. The WG FooML has a test driven Development. CP 1.3 Answer of the FooML WG. -> """We have a test driven development. So the structure of the specification is already covered by our organization AND therefore the testing approach is already documented. We are conformant.""" QA Folks answer: Bravo!!! > This problem is made worse by And not at all, RDF Core and OWL WGs did very well. > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-qaframe-ops-20030922/guidelines- > chapter#Ck-TM-plans-in-charter > [[ > for any Test Materials that it plans to produce or adopt, the WG MUST > define its commitment level to QA Framework: Test Guidelines -- A, AA, > or AAA. > ]] You would have no problems to comply. :) You are even better than the QA WG on this point. :))) Again bravo. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2004 18:19:02 UTC