- From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:51:37 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Issue #91 on the issues list at http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html questions Checkpoint 8.4 of the Spec Guidelines (SpecGL). That checkpoint says: Checkpoint 8.4. Include a statement regarding consistent handling of a discretionary item within an implementation. [Priority 2] The effect of each individual discretionary item should be consistent within a single implementation. For example, a browser's rendering of a XSL-FO (XSL Formatting Object) should be the same for every invocation regardless of the document instance. I think the checkpoint needs rewriting. The thrust of it is that any individual discretionary item is one that the implementer must decide once for the entire implementation. If the spec allows the choice of behaviors A or B (but no others), then an implementation must not make the product sometimes do A and sometimes B, depending on other factors. The spec, however, can recognize the other factors and define more than one discretionary item if it is convinced that such is a split provides more benefits than costs. The guideline is worthwhile, but the explanatory matter should point out why: so that a test case can be tied to a particular choice. The creators of the test suite can work from the spec to produce separate cases for A and B. An implementer can choose either A or B, and if they use the test suite, they pick one set of tests (the A set or the B set) to check their work. A vendor-neutral testing lab that is testing more than one implementation can apply different sets to the different implementations, according to the Implementation Conformance Statements (GL 12, Issue #96) from each vendor. This is yet another example of how the SpecGL requires spec writers to write specs that are testable, not just because the content is testable, but also because the spec sets up conditions that allow objective application of the tests that should be coming from the WG (or its designee) as another deliverable. .................David Marston
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 16:56:59 UTC