- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:22:34 +0100
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Dimitris and I met last night, and discussed the overlap between OpsGL and TestGL. We decided that at a minimum the following checkpoints should be dropped from OpsGL since we will be covering them adequately in TestGL: 3.2 Support spec versioning/errata in QA deliverables 5.2 Ensure test materials are usable for intended purpose 6.3 Include conformance verification disclaimer in test materials 8.1 Specify update procedure to track new spec versions/errata 8.2 Identify procedure for test validity appeals I was thinking things over later, and am now inclining to the position that even more material should be transferred from Ops to Tech. Here's why: Ops should focus specifically (and only) on WG-organizational issues (resources, communications, W3C procedural issues, etc.) "Operational guidelines' that address the process of developing test materials should be incorporated into a non-normative section in TestGL (similarly, the process of developing specs should be covered in SpecGL). In anticipation of taking this approach, here's a brief outline of what the "ops guidelines for test development" might cover: Treat test development like product development - it is (should be) a formal process For the highest-quality test suite: Resources must be effectively applied (you'll never have enough!) Understand your scope and goals: what do you want to test and how What kind of tests to be developed What kind of metadata to be supplied along with tests Apply resources in the most effective manner Focus on developing tests in areas where they will be most useful/effective Where it's most likely that implementations will be non-conformant Where the consequences of non-conformance would be greatest (eg, breaking interoperability) Avoid duplication of resources You can't just say to people "develop whatever tests you want" - must guide them/allocate areas Development process must be managed Provide guidelines to test developers Submissions must be reviewed Issues must be tracked in a formal manner Test materials must be formally tested (by you, by your users) You need a test plan for testing your test materials You need a beta-test and feedback process Bugs must be logged, tracked, and addressed Incorporating this material into TestGL would allow us to delete the following additional checkpoints from OpsGL: 2.1 Address where and how conformance test materials will be produced 5.1 Define a framework for test materials development 5.3 Define a contribution process 5.5 Define review procedures for submitted test materials
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 03:23:59 UTC