Section 2.3.57 - Table 2-2: the type (composite…) is lacking

No Data Available

Section 2.2:

• 1st paragraph: "if they match" -> "if they fully match" ?

• the five first bullets should be allocated in the correct sections of the PIM

• The last bullet reads strange after the introduction: does an implementation need to implement everything or just a part? Clarify.

The bulleted items of this issue were resolved under FTF 1 as follows:
• Changed wording to “if they conform to”.
• Replaced the final bullet with a better description of the intent, resulting in the deletion of the original text and insertion of the new text.
Rewording of the last bullet was discussed and adjudicated among FTF members to improve clarity.

• the XSD should be referenced in the XML header

• A lot of XML errors: line 33, 44, 54, 241 (& -> &), 257, 282, 372, 379, 406 and 415 (< and > are not XML characters), 425 and so one

c4i/12-09-09

- a lot of XML errors: lines 48, 289, 244,345, 346, 347, 348, 98 and so one… use a tool!

c4i/12-09-11

• again, this not a valid XML file

• again add the reference to the XSD to check the validity of the XML file wrt to the chema

• again, use a tool

These issues were checked and necessary changes were resolved during this FTF Period. These file have been replaced by documents:
c4i/12-09-07 dtc/2014-08-07 dtc/2014-09-20
c4i/12-09-09 dtc/2014-08-04 dtc/2014-09-22
c4i/12-09-11 dtc/2014-08-05 dtc/2014-09-23

c4i/12-09-06

• this file should hold only the xml and be an XML file since the text is copy/paste of the specification text

• the XSD should be referenced in the XML header

Appendix A has been changed from a document to XML file and the XSD is referenced in the header.
This file has been replaced by document: dtc/2014-09-22.

• the document number is wrong: it should 11-01 instead of 09-12

• Additional documents: aren't these documents machine consumable files?

• Where is the PSM for SQL file ?

The final inventory file (within this document) contains all the correct file references

Page 109 - Figure 2-66 & Page 110 - Figure 2-67: poor quality of the image

The TestIF team discussed the issue of the SQL PSM extensively. The SQL PSM was not completed in either the revised submission or during FTF1. Based on a survey of participants and all known active participants with the TestIF standard it was decided to remove the SQL PSM from the current specification. There are no known implementations (complete, partial, or planned) of the TestIF SQL PSM.
See Issue 19598 which asks for the removal of the SQL PSM

Most of classes and fields/attributes are not specified enough: too often, they are even not described at all. All fields deserve a clear and sensible description

Updated MANY class definitions and fields throughout the document to provide additional context and clarifying definitions. These changes effect virtually every class and page within Section 7 of the document

Please, CHECK you xml files wrt XML rules AND wrt their XSD with a tool

The XML files were updated to resolve structural issues and validated using Microsoft Visual Studio and all XML was validated against the schema with MS Visual Studio.