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

Re: Charter Comments

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:06:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4E691C.4050208@nokia.com>
To: ext Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, public-coremob@w3.org
On 2/29/12 11:25 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:13:42 +0100, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> 
> wrote:
>> 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.
> Couldn't agree more. But that is what I thought is already proposed - 
> if so this is an editorial clarification.
> Or did I miss something?

Well I hope we're all on the same page here. So given the following in 
the spec text:

All normative content will be specified exclusively by reference to the 
original standard defining the feature. Additional non-normative 
implementation guidance may be included.

Is the expectation:

* The CG {will | expects to} create tests for its own "non-normative 
guidance" statements

* If the CG identifies any testing related issues e.g. gaps, bugs, etc. 
for "normative references" the CG {will | expects to} contribute tests, 
patches, etc. to the relevant WG

-Thanks, AB
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 18:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:44 UTC