- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:07:19 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
HB: Harvey Bingham CK: Colin Koteles MM: Matt May DP: David Poehlman DD: Dimiti Dimitriadis LH: Lofton Henderson JG: Jon Gunderson TL: Tim Lacy IJ: Ian Jacobs EH: Eric Hansen Introduction JG: reviews the test suite documents LH: It looks good to me DD: What kind of lines for the DTD Have you tried to capture specific browser behavior JG: We have not used any propriety behavior of a user agent JG: recap LH: I thought the thrust of DD question, does the framework require a specific browser behavior JG: No DD: Does the presupposed any html behavior or subset of HTML CK: We use the HTML DTD for the code fragments LH: We have an XML DTD in DOM TS, that fully implements the DOM. We use the style sheet produces an XML schema. What kind of compliance of the browser do you expect. What we have done, we test things that are never implemented. Some things are rarely implemented. By using the XML versino we have come into situtations where the tests becomes more complex than it needs to be. HB: Tunnelized implementors. The shorter versino could be a java script instead of XML. LH: The problem with using the XML version for the DTD, we use call to the XSL engines that are the same as DOM calls. So you need a 100% browser comaptibility of the browser. You have a radio button that adds a button to an ordered list. If the browser doesn't comply then you can't test this condition. IJ: Dropping off EH: Dropping off HB: Earl work? LH: We are aware of Earl. We saw a demo of a tool. HB: A lot of good work. But no one seems to be applying it. LH: The working groups developing test suites are using there own formats right now. DD: Leaves LH: We will be looking at an application of EARL LH: Main barrier of earl needs front end and report generating tools. This is something that we hope we can do in a couple months to producing tools. Working groups are doing the tools themselves right now. We will atart tools develop in a few months, will look at EARL as a reporting language. JG: I work with student groups, let me know if that will help LH: Starting to form the tools group JG: What about non-machine testable questions LH: Others are more knowledge, I am more familar with automation like DOM and graghics HB: are you saying that it can always be automated LH: In DOM they are generating the test suite from the specification. These syntaxes are all computation based. The automation in something like SVG is not as easy to automated. SVG is all about semantics, how to draw the picture. UAAG seems more like SVG, than DOM level 1. Just thinking outloud, there are automatied test features. JG: I like the idea of generating the test suite from the from a shared source. HB: Any idea about reporting results LH: We have requirements for that. One requirement is tomeasure the extent of implementation. We are still wokring on this requirement. In about a month we will be developing and pointing to techniques. JG: Normative exceptions LH: Ian and I had a dialogue a few months ago. I disagreed with his view, but reading the 8 February requirement document for test suties. Sounds like his thinking are more alike, in that the exceptions are not really requirements but are just part of the pass fail criteria. JG: talked about conformance model JG: Test suite navigation LH: The QA editors that it is part of the test suite hareness, my own thoughts on navigation are that basically that you ought to have order through the test suite: next, last, and random access (TOC). HB: What is a hareness? LH: Factilitates organization of the tests and the results. DP: Leaves HB: Joy to be in the presences of LH LH: A appologize for the lack of QA participation JG: Would you please consider using the TS for possible TS techniques LH: A good timing for QA for another meeting dependent on an 19 August 2002 publishing date. Maybe after this date would be a good time. About a month.
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 15:04:24 UTC