Comments on the TA guidelines

["Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Comments on the TA guidelines

 

-----------------

[1]  I think we should make it more explicit that The "TA model" introduced in Section 3, is directly related  to the Test Assertion Model specification [TAM]. i.e. not just list [TAM] and [TAML] references in the ref section.

This could be done beginning Section 3, saying something like:

 

" The TA model described here is more formally defined in [TAM]."

 

Such explicit refrence for the mark-up [TAML] has been made in 5.3 examples.

 

-----------------

[2] The example in 5.3 is badly formatted: each TA should be separated, maybe a better indent too.

 

-----------------

[3] The material in Appendix A should be bulleted or the like, to better separate each entry.

 

-----------------

[4] In the Conformance section:

In addition to say that this is "non-normative" document, we should here again remind the reader that this guidelines doc is however about a normative specification ([TAM]), that must be complied with, when writing actual test assertions in a more formal way (i.e. based on a formal representation such as the XML representation in TAML).

In addition, in case  the comment [20] I made for the "TA model" spec is agreed on (extending the notion of conformance to the model, to TA instances as well, even those using the "informal" notation), we should remind the users that even when using simply the informal notation used in this guideline documents, TA instances defined that way must still  conform to [TAM] (which should be the case if the reader follows this guidelines).

 

 

-jacques