- From: Vijay Sikka <vsikka@nirixa.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:42:30 -0700
- To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- CC: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3CF799E6.3090307@nirixa.com>
I agree. See my earlier note regarding checking against the requirements in the standard as key in conformance checking. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002May/0057.html On a separate note: Should we include definitions for test types in QA Glossary? Any thoughts? Functional Test Blackbox Test Whitebox Test Load/Stress Test Regression Test Vijay Sikka ------------- Founder and Principal, Nirixa, Inc. 303 Almaden Boulevard 6th Floor San Jose, CA - 95110 408.998.7844 (main) 408.998.7845 (fax) www.nirixa.com vsikka@nirixa.com Mark Skall wrote: > > To clarify, anything that checks for conformance to a standard, > whether it's syntactic or semantic checking, is a test suite, in my > opinion. The key is that it must check against requirements in the > standard. > > Mark > > > > At 07:29 AM 5/31/02 -0400, Sandra Martinez wrote: > >> The HTML validator by it self, in our definition, will not be >> considered a test suite but a validation tool that could be used as >> part of the test procedures to check conformance to the standard >> (validation) , in that way it will be considered encompassing in the >> test suite definition. This is my understanding. >> >> Sandra >> >> >> >> >> >> At 04:33 PM 5/30/2002 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >> Sandra I. Martinez >> National Institute of Standards and Technology >> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970, >> Gaithersburg, Md. 20899 >> >> (301) 975-3579 >> sandra.martinez@nist.gov >> > > **************************************************************** > Mark Skall > Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division > Information Technology Laboratory > National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) > 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 > > Voice: 301-975-3262 > Fax: 301-590-9174 > Email: skall@nist.gov > **************************************************************** > >
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 11:39:03 UTC