- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:42:36 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Now that we've finished going through the test assertions I generated for SpecGL, it seems there is still one unanswered question: How are we going to develop test assertions (and modify the existing SpecGL assertions) in the future? There are at least 2 possible scenarios: 1) Develop the test assertions the same way I developed the SpecGL ones (i.e., use the conformance requirements PLUS additional info from Rationale, Discussion, Examples, etc.) I used this additional info because I felt more info was needed to fully define (and test) the conformance requirements. 2) Use ONLY the conformance requirements - no more no less - to generate the assertions. In my mind, this is the ideal, and preferred, approach. The conformance requirements section SHOULD (MUST?) be complete and self-contained. Using any additional info really means we're adding non-normative requirements to the test assertions. However, in order to use this approach, the conformance requirements have to be scrutinized to ensure completeness. Perhaps, there is a 2-tiered approach: Use the additional info (scenario 1) the first time the assertions are generated. The main intent would be to flush out problems/inconsistencies in the guideline. Then use ONLY the conformance requirements (scenario 2) to re-do the assertions for the final version. Any thoughts? Mark **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2004 12:43:25 UTC