Re: QA-related comments on charmod

Hi DanC,

Le ven 19/03/2004 ŗ 01:02, Dan Connolly a ťcrit :
> 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."

"How do you define test cases for Charmod or in better terms,  
how do you prove its applicability?"

> 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?

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux -

Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 05:31:07 UTC