- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:56:47 -0700
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
This has been entered into the QAWG Issues List: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x107 Discussion is welcome, on this mail list. Regards, -Lofton. At 08:25 AM 12/11/02 -0500, you wrote: >Issue: differentiate between test materials for CR and those for Recs. > >As part of the TestGL, we need to ensure that we address or don't preclude >the reality that test suites developed at the CR stage may be different >than a test suite at the Rec stage. The objectives for these test suites >are often very different - for example: for CR the objective may be to >'test the specification', whereas a test suite for a Rec is targeting >implementations. This was the case with XSL-FO. The tests focused on >specific behavior, not entire modules, sections, etc. It tested for >things outside the scope of the specification - since it wanted to see >what implementers were doing so that the spec writers could determine if >they wanted to refine the behavior, remove it, or make it broader. > >Since we advocate having tests for CR exit, we need to consider >this. Thus, we need words in the Introduction and/or CPs to capture the >idea that tests for CR may be different and may not need to do all the CPs >in TestGL (e.g., maintenance of tests). > >I don't know exactly how to capture this in terms of text for the TestGL. > >lynne > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 18:54:53 UTC