- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:31:05 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1079692265.28243.231.camel@stratustier>
Hi DanC, Le ven 19/03/2004 à 01:02, Dan Connolly a écrit : > I just reviewed the new charmod Fundamentals spec. All of > my comments are basically QA-related. > > Have you already spotted these issues? No, I don't think anybody from the QA IG/WG has made these comments before, even though the comments that Karl made on the previous version of the documents had some similar questions about testability and conformance model: "For example in the first statement (Testable assertion?), I had difficulty to define a binary test case, is it possible to have testable examples for each rule in a separate document." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jun/0022.html "How do you define test cases for Charmod or in better terms, how do you prove its applicability?" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2004Jan/0015.html > Do you think they're > worth fixing? I do ; I'm not sure if you're asking the opinion of the different IG participants, of the different WG participants, or an official support of your comments by the QA WG? Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 05:31:07 UTC