On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Jos Visser wrote:
> Wouldn't it be a better idea to work the other way around?
> I.e. make the tests, filter the jargon from them and then decide whether some
> of them need explanation or be part of a glossary?
Essentially, I think not:
- it will become a moving target while we develop the tests.
- it will be more difficult to keep the tests consistent (if we change
soemthing along the way, we need to go back and correct it in all kinds of
places).
- it will be useful to have thought of this in advance and develop
a guideline to be followed when developing the tests.
In practice, I think we will reiterate and update the list as we go along,
but I think it is a good idea to avoid the problems I mentioned above in
advance.
--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)
Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters
NL-1062 KD nr 149 tel. 31-204080204
Amsterdam e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
