This blog post should have been part three on the basic principles of context-driven testing. As you can see from the title, it is not. :-) The plan was to see if and to what degree the other schools of testing could accomodate the principles of the context-driven school – as a way of highlighting what makes the context-driven school different from the other schools. The problem is I’m not that interested in doing that at the moment, so the chance is small an interesting post would result from it. Perhaps another time.
I should probably also say something about Cem Kaner’s blog post in which he said he is no longer a member of the context-driven school: “If there ever was one context-driven school, there is not one now. Rather than calling it a “school”, I prefer to refer to a context-driven approach.”
I can be brief about that: to me the context-driven school is like an open source-project and apparently Cem Kaner decided he wanted to fork. In some ways that’s a shame, but I do understand his reasons. It’s just the way things go sometimes.
the testing curve 
So, jump to part 4?
You know how much I’m loving this series of posts…
[Joep’s reply: Don’t worry, there will be a part three. :-)
The irony is that before I started this blog, I was worried I wouldn’t have enough things to blog about. Yet, at this moment, there are three things I’d like to write a post about soon (testing education, scripted vs. exploratory testing and part three in the series). Also next week I’ll be at James Lindsay’s exploratory testing workshop and next month I’ll be at the Let’s Test-conference. They require at least one post each. So lack of subjects really isn’t much of a problem; lack of time is. :-D]