Re: New Definitons for Glossary

At 04:34 PM 4/16/02 -0400, Mark Skall wrote:

>Agreed.   However, you asked what a test assertion looks like.

Rhetorically (partially).  My point is that the definition should address 
such things as what the look like, even if it can't be completely 

>I responded that they are incredibly varied and can look like almost 
>anything.  That's why I provided one from a non W3C area - to give you a 
>different perspective.

Ah, I understand now.

>I'll have Sandra send out some examples from the XML test suite.

This will facilitate discussion.

More to the point:  add more prose and a simple example or two (or more) to 
"test assertion" definition in the Glossary.  The definition should be 
almost tutorial in nature, so that potential QA practitioners (to use 
David's term) are very clear about what test assertions are, why they are 
important, how they fit into the whole big picture (TA -> TP -> TC or some 
such context).  Etc.  Even an adaptation of the quote from Mary Brady (your 
subsequent message in this thread) might be helpful to include.


Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 20:04:44 UTC