W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2003

Re: OpsGL QA-commitment-group

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:54:17 -0600 (MDT)
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0305070849190.38717@measurement-factory.com>

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> CP1.3: Commit to complete test materials. [Priority 3] Conformance
> Requirements: the WG MUST commit to produce or adopt a complete Test
> Materials before Recommendation, where complete is defined as: at
> least one test case for every identifiable conformance requirement
> of the specification.

I apologize if I missed the discussion about it, but not all
"identifiable conformance requirements" are testable and, hence, can
have at least one test case. Should "testable" qualifier be added?
Should we demand that all conformance requirements are classified
based on their perceived testability?

Also, it is not clear from the above wording whether it is OK for N
identifiable conformance requirements (N > 1) to be covered by 1 test
case. Again, my apologies if the answer is already in some document.


                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 10:54:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:21 UTC