[TIP] Result protocol / pass-fail-error

[Douglas Philips]

On or about 2009 Apr 14, at 10:36 AM, Victoria G. Laidler indited:
> I disagree with the grouping of this hierarchy, and I'm not sure a  
> hierarchy buys you enough to be worth the inflexibility (EG, you  
> clearly think that "timeout" is a subcase of Fail; I think it's a  
> subcase of Error. With a defined hierarchy we have to come to  
> agreement; without one, we can each apply the grouping or hierarchy  
> logic ourselves, downstream.

+1 on downstream (I agree with the whole paragraph quoted).
Keeping it simple.
Personally, I would like to avoid any semantic impositions on the test  
status. It is what it is.
But I understand that in order to build a common "down-stream" eco- 
system it might be useful to have some well-known values and that  
implementation/site specific values will always be 2nd class citizens  
in a generic world. :)


> Objects are not language-agnostic, which this result protocol is  
> intended to be. Test statuses in this protocol cannot be objects.

Agreed.

	-Doug