- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:05:41 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, sandro@w3.org
Excerpting Jeremy Carroll: >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. It's probably best to back away from mentioning the specification, which we tacitly assume to be a document, and express this checkpoint against classes of product. How about this? "Checkpoint 1.3. For each class of product the WG intends to specify, determine and document the testing approach to be used for its conformance test suite." I don't consider that overly prescriptive of method, since the very fact that a WG was chartered has scoped their work to about this level. The above wording also attempts to clarify that the checkpoint is about a sanctioned test suite that can be used against the implementations (of a particular class of product), when they appear. .................David Marston
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 11:07:06 UTC