Re: [tag-discuss] Re: Test case metadata is not in scope (was: Re: Reasons to wait...)

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 29/11/06, david_marston@us.ibm.com <david_marston@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> DP>Then why is it repeatedly raised here? Obfuscation?
>
> One of the weak points of the current efforts to define test case
> metadata
If you are referring to references into the spec, please call them that.
there is no need to invent terminology for simple things.


 is that it can only point at specs with the granularity that
> the spec editors deigned to provide.
Perhaps a simple addition of an ID attribute would suffice to address
specific paragraphs. If the para is more than one requirement
then it is a matter of English and clarity?
that is the educational aspect of this work; IMHO far more
useful than lots of code working against ill formed XML.


> More broadly, this shows that the conformance testing community has
> identified several pieces of unfinished business.

More that I don't understand.

Please be aware that some of us don't have your history in W3C QA
with all its jargon David. I'm sure Daniel D didn't use it, and I certainly
feel quite baffled by it.

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk