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

Re: [F2F] Agenda

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:31:43 +0000
To: Jet Villegas <jet@mozilla.com>
CC: W3C CoreMob CG <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC018883.8DC3D%tobie@fb.com>
Hi Jet,

Thanks for your comments.

On 6/15/12 11:13 PM, "Jet Villegas" <jet@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Level 0 needs some more work that we should discuss. In particular, it's
>not clear what passing Level 0 really means.

Level 0 has been shelved. It's therefore pointless to discuss it at the
F2F beyond restating the reasons for shelving it, which I'll do in the

> I'm concerned that Level 1 will follow the same route, leading to feeble
>implementations that "pass."

Your comment makes me feel like there's still a lot of confusion between
Ringmark and Coremob. Hopefully, the test session on Tuesday will help
clarify this.

As Robin recently wrote[1]: "Ringmark was provided as input to this group
and it is up to us to take it forward in whichever ways we see fit. What's
more, there is nothing that constrains this group inside Ringmark  we can
create other tools, other testing approaches, etc. if we find them useful."

To clarify further, there is currently no official conformance test suite
for either of the now shelved level 0 spec or the level 1 spec. In that
context, claiming to "pass" level 1 is just nonsensical.

 Whether Ringmark could seed such a conformance test suite is still
completely undecided; Robin is currently assessing the Ringmark tests and
will hopefully be able to provide input on that issue soon.

> I think the best way to avoid that is to apply a high level of rigor and
>discipline to Level 0. Let's list the Level 0 apps/sites that actually
>use those features in a significant way and measure their real-world
>performance against the browsers that claim to pass Level 0. I expect
>some interesting findings for us here.

That's great input for the session on testing!


[1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Jun/0040.html
Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 23:32:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:47 UTC