RE: Submission & Review Policies

[David_Marston@lotus.com]

>> is Cris
> is Ken

>>3. The tests should target specific language issues, not
>>"composite issues".
>>
>>The tests should be aimed at the language features and
>>versions that are in scope for the Specification.
>>"Composite issues" are those that would cause parser errors
>>or that involve other W3C specifications that are out of
>>scope for the current test suite.
>
>Is this perhaps a bit redundant?  All of 1, 2 and 3 seem to be
>repeating the same principle.

No, (3) needs to be revised to make clear that it refers to the
whole parser-XSLT-serializer chain, environment where run, etc.

>>4. The tests should target "must" provisions of the
>>Specification, not "should" provisions....
>I think we should encourage as many tests as possible and then
>ascertain their applicability through our review policies.

I agree with Ken.

>The submitter is welcome to send any collection of files in any
>subdirectory structure.

Which reminds me: we have a pending issue about where we will put
the correct-output files in the tree we deliver. The submission policy
could say something to the effect that we will preserve the directory
structure of the submitted stylesheets and data, but correct output
files and (later) parameter-setting files may be moved as needed.

>>13. The final test ID will be concatenation of Submitter
>>and test IDs.

>I don't think this is necessary from the point of view of a
>submission policy document.

We may want to inform the submitters that we ultimately need to
produce a unique fully-qualified-name for every test case.
.................David Marston