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] Features, abstract features, and precise element semantics to limit lock-in

2008/6/24 jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com>:

> Dave (and others), I know there is the testability issue; however, there is such a thing as damage control after the fact. An accreditation group may want to be able to revoke certification if they are led to believe that a product has been violation these constraints repeatedly or simply because it is buggy. After all, a user that wants to write a paragraph for their resume wants to be able to read it back when they open it with last year's app or in a different app that is also certified as meeting profile ODF/core.

Damage control?

There are 18 uses of the word shall in ODF 1.1.
193 occurrences of the word 'must'.
In a document of 800 pages.

Strictly speaking (for a viable standard without Robs laxity) that is
how many tests are needed for compliance.

I'm now of the opinion that the 'report back to the main TC' should be
the the IIC TC's main task.

As a standard it's not good.

> Yes, it is not completely subjective. That is why I refer to *abstract* feature. However, it is a useful notion because the concept of a paragraph is very well defined in other contexts. It's understood by humans if not precisely in some contexts by computers. [Well, even humans might debate the meaning of paragraph.. which is why I wanted to throw in the "intent of the user as designated by their actions." I think some W3C standards also make use of such potentially vague untestable notions. ..And I am talking about trying to get this into the ODF normative sections.]

Any whitespace separated block in the text progression direction.

> Manual tests requiring subjective human decisions are fine if the ratio of tests performed to human interaction is still high, and we can help make the decisions as unambiguous as possible.

Manual tests must be objective Jose. If they can't be designed that
way then they aren't clear tests.


Dave Pawson

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