- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:34:27 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org, sandro@w3.org
Brian Thanks for butting in - your clarification helps a lot. IMO, the intent of the checkpoint is as you state: >[[ >Checkpoint 1.3. The testing approach to be used is documented. > >NOTE: A single uniform testing approach may not be appropriate for all >aspects of a specification. The testing approach may define different >approaches for different aspects, for example, different approaches may be >used for testing document syntax and for testing document processing. The >structure of a specification may give useful clues to the different kinds >of tests that would be useful. >[Priority 1] >]] We just didn't do a good job at writing it. We appreciate your comments as well as Jeremy's - Please keep in mind that the TestGL is still under development - many changes are being made. We have been talking to test developers as well as WGs to learn about how they build tests so that we can capitalize on their experience and not violate what is being done. The goal is not to be burdensome or obtrusive, but to actually provide something useful - this isn't always easy to do. The WG is scheduling a telecon to discuss Jeremy's comments. Although we haven't made the Agenda for our March meeting at Tech Plenary, I'm sure that TestGL will be a topic of discussion. Since our meetings are open to all - You, Jeremy and others are welcome to join. regards Lynne
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 09:35:29 UTC