Re: ACTION ITEM: Vote on Discretionary Items report by end-of-dayMonday (4/23)

[Carmelo Montanez <carmelo@nist.gov>]

Hi all:

    I figure I will do my voting today ........


> 1. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Testable" belong there?
>    If not, state your objections.

    I think those look ok to me, I vote to leave them there

> 2. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Testable Discretionary
>    Items to Postpone" are testable? Do you agree that they should be
>    postponed? If not, state your objections.

        On the interest of moving forward, I will agree that they should be
postponed.

> 3. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Acknowledged But Not
>    Testable" belong there? (These items would go on the questionnaire,
>    but associated test cases would always be excluded. There are some
>    tests that can use generated IDs, nodes from multiple documents, or
>    output HTML character entities without running afoul of these items,
>    so those cases would not be flagged.)
>    If not, state your objections.

        We can acknowledge the fact that those items are there.  I think
        putting them into the test suite is a mistake.  Our test suite
should
        be a fully composed of fully conformant tests, that is tests
        that can be tied back to the specs.  If the item is not testable,
then
        whether or not a a vendor wishes to use it should be decision
        between that vendor and the testing lab.  I beleive those
        tests (or questions) should be part of a whole different document.

> 4. Do you agree that all the items listed as "Out of Scope" belong
>    there, given clarification (G) above? If not, state your objections.

        The words "out-of-scope" and "conformant" should not be in the same
        document.  I don't think we should even touch any
        "out-of-scope" items or ask questions about it.

> 5. Do you agree that we have asked for enough information for test
>    cataloging, suite rendition, and use of the suite by a test lab?
>    If not, please ELABORATE.
>
        I think we have plenty.  Lets go with it!!!!!!!


Greetings,
Carmelo