- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:05:18 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Responding to Jeremy Carroll's message of 1 July 2003: >This is a review of the Test Guidelines WD dated 16 May 2003 >It is important to identify what motivates the best people to >participate in the W3C and what demotivates them. It is at least >plausible that peer group acclaim is important, and hence it is >important that WG members who contribute to the test work are >adequately acknowledged. Agreed. (...he said, self-servingly) >This suggests a priority 1 guideline that there should be a >recommendation track document for the test work in a WG. Disagree. The test suite applies to a Rec-track document, but if it were a separate document, you would have synchronization problems. The actual test case collection needs to be filterable, and will be able to be filtered for various versions of the Rec, as well as the other Dimensions of Variability. >A good choice of editor who takes pride in their work, will be one of >the best ways to ensure a deep quality to the test work. True whether you're referring to an editor or to a test-collection supervisor who takes pride in the suite's coverage. >It may be appropriate that each test is individually attributed. Agreed. >...As it is, the waterfall model you suggest looks like makework for >mediocre members of the WG Only as you've read more waterfall methodology into the document than is actually there. Test case writers can be assigned to try to find holes in the current Working Draft, which may require creativity. >...Requiring documentation is the instrument of mediocrity. Ouch. I thought it was the instrument of interoperability and the way that non-WG vendors would have some hope of producing their implementations. BTW, when a commitment level requires that a particular resource be delivered as a requirement to go to Rec, that is not enforcing the waterfall methodology. **Everything** should be finished. You can anticipate that errata will be needed (due to human nature), but the resources delivered for the Rec should have no known errors. I think that QAWG will clarify this in later drafts. .................David Marston
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 00:05:30 UTC