[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Acid Tests (was: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Interoperability versus Conformity)
2008/6/12 <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>: > "Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> wrote on 06/12/2008 07:49:30 AM: >> Its a simple technical reason. W3C CSS2 test suite is harder to use >> compared Acid test. Anyone with even basic skills can point there >> browser to the Acid Test and see result. More experience is need to >> use CSS2 test suite and the like. Note the W3C test suites are older >> than the Acid Test. Acid Test make problems more displayed. > OK. So reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that one of > the important goals of an Acid-type test would be that it can be run by > anyone -- end users, journalists, i.e., non-geeks. They don't need to first > download and install a JDK, ant, and a dozen XML tools first. They just > load the document in their editor and see how it looks. And (me also reading between the lines), these LSD tests are also automated? Could be a contradiction there. I've put a stupidly simple definition of a 'tester' on the google site. I'd love anyone to run a test suite. It's more likely to be a geek though. Even if he does have to follow a dumb install document first. But we may also > have another set of tests (I've been calling them 'atomic tests') that are > targeted to vendors and testing labs. +1, if an atomic test tests all or part of one para in ODF standard. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]