OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[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.)

2008/6/19 jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com>:
>> From my reading so far, the only viable route is via
>> compliance testing.
>> I haven't seen any other definition of interop that is
>> viable and
>> based on the standard.
> The text describing the interop rules is very important.

Which text Jose? in our output or the standard?

> You can't test everything by a long shot. Having an evolving test suite is very valuable for testing the boundary cases.

>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."

Which rules? Do you mean the paragraphs in 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.

If you see the 'rules' as the standard, then I agree. Very much so.
It would seem that the authors of ODF did not see it that way.
Implementation came much
higher than interop or testability.

> [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.]

Very much on topic.


Since so many people see interop as the main feature, perhaps we could
change the focus of the TC.
If the primary output of the TC is a list of recommended changes and
additions to the standard to
improve testability(via clear requirements) and aid interoperability,
then the TC could do what people are
asking for (although indirectly).

Would that provide improved interoperability?


Dave Pawson

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]