- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:56:31 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 12:17 AM 5/8/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >At 08:54 AM 5/7/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > >>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? > >I don't have a problem adding such a qualifier. Objections anyone? I object. The reason is that I don't accept Alex's premise. Every requirement should (MUST) be testable. (In fact, I thought this statement was included somewhere in our guidelines) If a requirement is not testable, it should be reworded to be testable or be eliminated from the specification. If it can't be tested, it can't be verified that it was done correctly and is, thus, of no use. Adding the suggested qualifier would sanction having non-testable requirements. Mark **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 09:57:15 UTC