- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:49:18 -0000
- To: <www-qa@w3.org>
"Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> > you could for example say that > something is testable if one could reasonably expect conformance testing > software to proof it. Testable should be able to encompass things which are not currently likely to be software computable, human testing could be sufficient, as long as pass/fail wasn't subjective. > I would suggest to choose a better term as "tests" are commonly > perceived as involving automated process; I don't agree fully agree with this, it's certainly one meaning, but not the only. Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 19:51:37 UTC