W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: brainstorming: test cases, issues, goals, etc.

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:55:20 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D258B7A@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>

I like the approach of accumulating a collection of test cases and requirements. It is in the spirit of "brainstorming" as I see it. 
 
I also agree that aiming at a "roadmap" in three months makes a lot more sense than aiming at a draft specification. It has been some time since HTML 4 was released so it will be nice to begin with the more or less even footing that document provides. 
 
While the WHATWG has done a tremendous amount of effort, not all members of this Working Group will have been involved in that effort.
 
David Dailey
 
(apologies if this appears twice)

________________________________

From: public-html-request@w3.org on behalf of Dan Connolly
Sent: Tue 3/13/2007 7:36 PM
To: public-html@w3.org
Subject: brainstorming: test cases, issues, goals, etc.




While I'm still reluctant to make any critical decisions before following
up with some people who have indicated interest in participating, I suppose
it's time to start brainstorming, at least.

I like test cases. I know at least a few other participants do too. I'm
not quite
sure how to organize work on test cases for HTML, but if you're
interested, please
sketch a test case and send it to the mailing list. Attach a test
document, please.
Maybe it's a simple hello-world test case like "this is a good HTML
document,
with a title and a couple paragraphs."

Or maybe it's a test case that characterizes an issue, like "the HTML 4 spec
says this document is no good, but clearly it is, according to current
practice."

Or perhaps it characterizes an interoperability issue, a la "browser X works
as I'd expect with the attached document, but browser Y doesn't."

Perhaps you have a goal for this WG; I'd like to think you can make up
a document that is relevant to that goal; e.g. if you want some feature
that's not in HTML 4, attach a document that uses the new feature,
and motivate it in the body of the document. Maybe the motivation
will naturally come in the form of a story or use case.

Likewise requirements... if you have a requirement, tell us about it
and attach a document that does or doesn't meet the requirement
(or shows that some software does or doesn't meet the requirement).

Please choose the subject of your message carefully, and please
start a new thread for each test case, issue, goal, requirement, story, etc.

A few people have observed that we owe a Working Draft within
3 months. While that's true, it need not be a specification.
It could be a test plan. I think somebody suggested a roadmap
as a first publication. I'm not sure I like those ideas, but they're
worth brainstorming about.

As to what we're starting with, the charter says "A language evolved
from HTML4 ..."
   http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables

I suppose HTML5 and WebForm2 are evolved from HTML4; I welcome brainstorming
around those specs too.

While we're brainstorming, I'll be following up with a few people about
joining the
Working Group. I hope within a week or two we'll be in a position to
start making
some decisions as a group.

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:11:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:11:15 GMT