- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:03:52 -0800
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-html-testsuite@w3.org" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>, "Jonas Sicking (jonas@sicking.cc)" <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Saturday 2011-02-19 19:42 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:01 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > Instead, it would make more sense to publish "does implementation X > > pass all tests for feature Y". > > That makes sense to me. We want some report of how well different > implementations implement various parts of the standard, but "all > tests for feature Y" seems like it would be good enough for that > purposes, and it's much more meaningful than a percentage. Of course, > this would only be for things where we have a decent approved test > suite -- within HTML, it seems that means only canvas right now. > (IMO, my base64 and reflection tests also qualify, but no one's > reviewed them yet.) Why is inclusion in the test suite being gated on a review process? I thought we agreed during the testing discussion at TPAC in November that it wouldn't be. I think a model where tests are included when their author thinks they're ready, and then others can challenge them, works much better than one gated on reviews for all tests. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2011 18:04:42 UTC