Re: Testable assertions thread

Thanks for the clarification Alex. I obviously was not verbose enough.

In the next iteration of items that came up in this thread, I'll 
include your clarification. Does anyone else have things to add to my 
list?

Also, the results of the survey we (the QA WG) undertook have been 
tabularized and I should be able to report to this list as soon as the 
QA WG has had a chance to provide feedback.

/Dimitris


On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 10:27  PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
>
>> Should we control the specification markup alone? (D. Marston, D.
>> Dimitriadis) Or have a fair markup and a fair adressing scheme? (A.
>> Rousskov, S. Boag)? Perfect markup would solve our problems, but may
>> be difficult to bring about (however, conclusions from the
>> specification authoring survey render a uniform markup idea fairly
>> plausible)
>
> You might be mixing several distinct points/opinions here:
>
> 	- nobody is against better markup, of course;
> 	  if somebody can improve xmlspec, they should do it!
> 	  there is an obvious tradeoff between markup
> 	  permissiveness (making it easy for editors to add new
> 	  markup "features") and uniformity (making it easy for 3rd
> 	  party tools to work with specs)
>
> 	- uniform markup is, of course, _possible_ to enforce for
> 	  new W3C specs; no reason to survey current specifications
> 	  to assert that
>
> 	- no markup is perfect -- no markup is sufficient to
> 	  express everything a test tool or a 3rd party document
> 	  would want to extract or cite;
> 	  this assertion is true because the things we test/cite are
> 	  not limited to what spec authors marked as things that
> 	  can be tested/cited; thus, we MUST NOT rely on
> 	  [future] xmlspec alone and MAY propose a domain-specific
> 	  addressing scheme
>
> This leads to two distinct primary (but optional) activities:
>
> 	- improving xmlspec (including rewriting it if needed)
> 	- proposing an addressing scheme (including adopting
> 	  existing ones such as XPointer, if possible)
>
> W3C survey and discussions can help to decide whether any of the above
> activities worth spending W3C resources on.
>
> Alex.
>
>
> -- 
>                             | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph 
> benchmark
> www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
>                             | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 15:31:58 UTC