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

Re: [qaframe-spec] What is testable?

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:49:18 -0000
Message-ID: <002c01c37275$fd676e20$448f9bd9@Snork>
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

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