Re: [cgmo-webcgm] test suite questions

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 11:04 AM 2/6/2006 -0500, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>[...]
>My point was that we have already enough work as is (and progress is being 
>made at a very slow pace). So lets prioritize...
>
>The way I see it, we don't need 1.0 tests in the 2.0 test suite. From a 
>process stand point (i.e., for getting some sort of Standard recognition), 
>it doesn't help us. We're just making the test suite bigger (and 
>duplicating things). I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but simply 
>saying that it doesn't _have_ to be done.
>
>In my opinion:
>
>- First priority should be new 2.0 features.
>- Second, modified 1.0 behaviors in 2.0.
>- Third, (if time permitting) moving unchanged 1.0 tests to 2.0.

Because measuring 2.0 conformance means passing (most of) the 1.0 tests, I 
think at the very least that the 2.0 harness must have some indication that 
2.0 conformance involves:  "pass these 1.0 tests" (list 'em or link 
'em).  That would be an acceptable and expedient substitute for "moving 
unchanged 1.0 tests to 2.0".

-Lofton.