- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:30:06 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org, connolly@w3.org
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > P.S. I doubt I would ever write a "2+2 MUST be X" statement in a
> > spec. I am using provided examples simply to illustrate the
> > point that it is impossible to clearly specify when to use
> > MUSTs and when to use BEs. Note that the original question of
> > this thread is somewhat different: whether anything but MUSTs
> > can be used in a compliant specification to form CRs?
>
> Yes your
>
> [[Conformance requirements: The test suite MUST define it scopes,
> goal, and intended purpose.]]
>
> seems to be a semantic error to me. The developer of the test suite
> may have to define its scopes and goals.
> Test suites don't have to do anything.
You seem to be confused about Test Guidelines authorship.
While I find the tone of your "Review of Test Guidelines"
inappropriate, I agree that the practical value of that
document is likely to be relatively low until W3C becomes
more bureaucratic and boring organization than its seems
to be right now.
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, 1 July 2003 13:30:13 UTC