W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: mobileOK Basic test suite

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:22:25 -0500
Message-ID: <e920a71c0803040722y26c9b71es3405dbbf2a5e0b0a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>, public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

Wooow that is sweet (suite?).

Indeed as Dom says, contributing to the test suite is as simple as
providing a document and a note about what should happen. We can take
care of the rest.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  As per my ACTION-609, I've been working on completing the description of
>  the test suite that was developed along with the mobileOK checker
>  library.
>
>  The result of this work is a complete report of the current test suite
>  coverage, accompanied with the current checker results:
>  http://dev.w3.org/2007/mobileok-ref/test/report.html
>
>  I think that those that want to have a say on whether the checker should
>  be considered as a reference implementation for mobileOK basic (per
>  ISSUE-228) can use this report as a basis for their analysis.
>
>  In other words, a good way to find whether the checker does what it is
>  supposed to do is to take one of the test case, look at its content and
>  description, and look whether the checker results are what they should
>  be.
>
>  Also, if you think that a particular mobileOK test isn't adequately
>  covered by the current test suite, please feel free to submit a test
>  case that illustrates the area you think is not covered.
>
>  (the Object_or_script test is one of these areas; once we have a clear
>  resolution on the open issues for this, I'll look at completing the test
>  suite)
>
>  Feedback and suggestions are welcome.
>
>  Dom
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 15:22:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 March 2008 15:22:48 GMT