Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results

[Gary Stephenson <garys@ihug.com.au>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francis Norton" <francis@redrice.com>

> [2] Specs precede implementation better than test packs do - it is
> easier to define a complete spec than it is to define a complete test
> suite, and many test questions cannot reasonably be anticipated unless
> you make assumptions about how the application will be implemented.


"Completeness", as Goedel informed us, is an impossible goal.  (We might
navigate by the stars without actually hoping to reach them.)

Certainly the spec has to precede the test suite - but given that there is a
well-defined process that a spec has to be frog-marched through to reach
"Recommendation" status, why could it not reasonably be expected that the
final recommendation should be expressed as a sequence of executable tests in
some agreed upon language (presumably Java at this stage).  If, as I am led to
believe, a spec can not actually attain W3C recommendation status unless and
until it has actually been implemented, then that should mandate that there be
a valid test suite to determine whether it truly _has_ been implemented or
not.

my  $A0.014  (and falling)

gary



>