[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Implementation vs. result (CDRF, profiles,et al.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1 Craig A. Eddy Tyche Shawn wrote: > jose lorenzo wrote: >> The text describing the interop rules is very important. You >> can't test everything by a long shot. Having an evolving test >> suite is very valuable for testing the boundary cases. ["Boundary >> cases" depend also on implementations and is not always revealed >> through the existing formal test suite, especially since you can >> code around (without fixing the issue for other cases) any >> anticipated tests.] Without a thorough standard, adding and >> adjusting tests (desirable to grow coverage and fix testsuite >> bugs) would mean effectively constantly changing the standard >> with every test change. It's also good to be able to identify >> issues after the fact. We need clear rules for that. Tests might >> be incorrect in subtle ways as per the rules. Something must be >> the final word. Tests are subservient to the rules whenever rules >> are deemed to be the "standard." >> >> Maybe you meant: besides the rules, testing is the most >> important. [..apologize if you meant that, but too much eagerness >> to code tests when rules might be missing is ok but should not >> lead to the rules not being written. The primary value is in the >> (testable) rules.] >> >> Between two sets of rules that are about the same, the one that >> can be tested better is to be preferred. >> >> Also, I think tests should be written as the rules are written as >> a way to test the quality of the rules as early as possible. >> >> [All "off topic" discussions that relate to building the interop >> framework are useful gains so long as the primary task of writing >> the TC charter continues.] > > Can we have some clarification of what we are proposing to test? > > Are we testing how other applications read/write the ODF standard? > Are we testing how the standard works in other applications? > (subtle but important distinction here) Are we testing how to use > ODF with OOXML/protocol of choice All the above? > > This was alluded to in an earlier post, but I think this issue gets > to the core. > > If we are ONLY testing how well other applications utilize the > existing standard, then a whole lot of conversation just > disappears. We no longer need to care about W3C CRF, OOXML, etc. > These would by definition be out of scope. > > I don't think we are hear to solve the "interoperability quagmire". > I believe all we need to worry about is a) how well various > applications conform to, or utilize the ODF standard. b) identify > problem areas that need to be brought to the attention of the ODF > TC (if that's the right place for changing the ODF standard). I > doubt we are here to change the standard itself. There are other > TC's for that job. > > If that is the given "goal" of this TC, then we only need to worry > about how to test the conformity, and how to identify problem > areas. Which takes us square back to defining profiles and tests. > All other discussion becomes OT. More specifically, we only need > to worry about drafting the charter to allow these activities, and > to avoid clouding the issue with the other interpretations of > "interop". > > Soooo, am I on the right track here, or should I go back to lurking > now?? :) > > Shawn > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > oiic-formation-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For > additional commands, e-mail: > oiic-formation-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIWag0DOWu08UKbpURAotMAKCGrwOp1cLoCnXv8+hTE5m0sTH3PQCfUyXV f/8xQRvVYS+TuG5/jCKg9xU= =C9lN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]