W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Charter Comments

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:13:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4F4E3296.60204@opera.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, public-coremob@w3.org
On Wed 29 Feb 2012 02:41:33 PM CET, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> #2 Test suite - it's good to see any initiative identify test cases as 
> a priority. It seems to me the most effective use of the CG's testing 
> resources for the specs within the CG's interest, would be to directly 
> contribute to existing test suites rather than for the CG to create 
> its own test suite(s). Additionally, if there are test suite gaps for 
> specs of interest, the CG's testing resources should be directed to 
> the relevant WG. [For example, see WebApps' "Testing" column in 
> <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus> for gaps in WebApps' 
> test suites e.g. File API spec.] Let's please not duplicate testing 
> resources.

Yes, I strongly agree with this. If the group wants to release its own 
*presentation* of test results according to some mobile-centric view of 
what's important that's fine (although I note upfront that there are 
deep issues with this kind of thing; it is very hard to make things 
fair and sets bad incentives for contributers). But all the tests 
should be drawn from existing test repositories for HTML, WebApps, CSS, 
etc. and any new tests should be contributed directed to those 
repositories.
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 14:14:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:46 UTC