- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:33:20 -0600
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 01:37 PM 5/30/02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: >On Thu, 30 May 2002, Karl Dubost wrote: > > > At 22:20 -0400 2002-05-23, Mark Skall wrote: > > > > >I'm not sure where the "validation" definition came from. Tying > > >validation to a document is way too restrictive. The definition we > > >usually use is "the process necessary to perform conformance testing > > >in accordance with a prescribed procedure and an official test > > >suite." > > > > In a case of the HTML validator you don't have a Test Suite. > >"HTML validator" is, essentially, a "Test Suite", isn't it? I know >that the current definition does not imply that but it should be >possible to have a single term that describes all validators, >including test suites. "Validator"? It should not matter, for the >purpose of the glossary, whether we are validating compliance with a >protocol, a markup language, or whatever... I thought -- correct me if this is wrong, Mark or Sandra -- that NIST used "test suite" in an encompassing way, that would include an HTML validator. However the Glossary definition of "test suite" doesn't seem to imply that. -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 18:32:42 UTC