- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:36:20 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
> True, this is an assumption I'm making. Do you have an example of
> the behavioral W3C spec that has non-enumerable input space (of
> power of continuum)?
SpecGL is, primarily, not about existing W3C specs but future specs so
existing examples have little value.
> You don't need to build and execute a process in order to prove that the
> process can be built.
I do not need to prove that the process can be built. I need to apply
an existing process to an existing implementation or document. I do
not care if a spec is testable in some abstract way. I need to test
real implementations using real tools that detect real spec
violations.
What good does it make to know that a spec is testable if I cannot
test an implementation, and I cannot pay somebody to test it for me?!
> In fact some languages specs (like Java) were proven this way
> (although it took ~3 years for Java).
I do not need to prove that Java abstraction is a complete(?)
language identical to a Turing machine. I need to prove that a given
Java interpreter complies with Java specs. A much more practical task.
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 23:36:26 UTC