- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: 09 Sep 2003 10:03:27 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 04:03:28 UTC
Le dim 07/09/2003 à 06:16, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit : > If I understand you correctly, "testable" > means that someone shall be able to tell whether the requirement has > been met. If that's the case, everything that could be a requirement of > a specification is by definition testable and so it does not make sense > to me to use that term at all. What about "an implementation of this specification MUST achieve all the whishes the humans ever had"; is that testable? ie., is there anybody that is able to tell the requireemnt has been met? More seriously, it is fairly easy to make a test assertion non-testable as soon as you use an unqualified words such as 'all', subjective but not targeted statements (ie, subjective statements where it is not said who is supposed to make the statement), etc. (I'm not saying that's it's easy to define what testable is - the numerous threads on this topics that this mailing list has known show it pretty well...) Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 04:03:28 UTC