- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:56:22 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
- cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, <scott_boag@us.ibm.com>, <www-qa@w3.org>
confined to QA list. Yes. This is the approach taken by the MUTAT test harness, which takes an RDF input specifying the tests. That can either be a seperate document pointing into a test suite, or can be something drawn automatically from a specification that includes markup to identify each testable points. MUTAT: http://www.barbwired.com/nadiaweb/tester/ Sean Palmer did some work on extracting such information from WCAG as a spec. The cost of this is marking up each checkpoint (testable requirement) - in the WCAG case it was done in the HTML, and in xmlspec it would involve a new attribute or element or something and a change to the XSLT perhaps. This gives us the ability to collect test results via a reasonably general tool. For specs written in XHTML it is a pretty small workload - adding a class to an element. I assume that it is fairly easy in xmlspec too - the work comes down to the editors remembering, and thinking about the way they are writing. I don't have a good way to estimate that. Chaals On Mon, 6 May 2002, Paul Cotton wrote: >I don't know the cost, and I don't know the benefit. Another technique is to have a separate test/conformance document that points directly into a technical specification or quotes test from the normative document. For example, see the SOAP 1.2 test/conformance document [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/11/soap-1.2-conformance.html
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 22:56:30 UTC