W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [HTMLWG] CfC: Adopt "Plan 2014" and make some specific related decisions

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:13:48 +0200
To: public-html@w3.org, "James Graham" <jgraham@opera.com>
Message-ID: <op.wmmedaju6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:11:22 +0200, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:

> On 10/22/2012 04:10 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 10/22/12 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> To turn this discussion more constructive, the problem that needs to be
>>> solved is the misconception that exists that the HTML5 specification is
>>> all that needs to be implemented
>>
>> I think that what Jonas and Henri are concerned about is a parallel
>> problem, which is the misconception that if something is in a document
>> found on w3c.org then it's "a spec" and needs to be implemented, tested
>> for in homegrown conformance tests like html5test.com, and so forth.
>> This has been a problem even for technologies that have been formally
>> dropped by the W3C (e.g. WebSQL).
>
> One solution to this might be to suck the oxygen out of the market for  
> unofficial feature test pages*, by doing a better, more authoritative,  
> job ourselves.
>
> I have previously argued against making a big show of test results, and  
> I still think that there is a significant danger of creating perverse  
> incentives if people start creating tests not to improve implementation  
> quality, but to make themselves look good or — in very sad cases — to  
> make others look bad. But perhaps it is worth re-examining the issue and  
> seeing if there is a path that one can tread where we get the good  
> effects of more prominent reporting of test results, without the harm.
>
> I have been vaguely pondering the notion of assigning each test a  
> priority, so that an implementation that passed all the P1 tests would  
> have "basic support" for a feature, and one that passed all the P1-P5  
> tests would have "excellent support" for a feature, or something. That  
> might provide a reasonable balance between conformance tests as a  
> promotional tool — something which it is clear that the market desires,  
> regardless of what we may think — and conformance tests as a way of  
> actually improving interoperability.
>

I think this is actually a good idea. This also will also help get more  
test cases into the pool without promoting all of them immediately to a  
"MUST PASS" status (or dropping them all together)

> I have several concerns with this idea. It might be a lot of work, and  
> one certainly couldn't expect test submitters to do it.

A coordinated, well promoted and organized testing effort is a lot of work  
regardless.
I think is time for the wider W3C community to work together on this to  
make testing a first class citizen (and not just something you need to get  
to Rec status)
This may be a good topic for discussion at TPAC.

> It might lead to test classification fights (but surely this would be  
> better than people fighting to drop tests altogether?). A single test  
> might fail for a P1 reason ("there is a huge security hole") or a P3  
> reason ("the wrong exception type is thrown"). I don't know if these are  
> insurmountable issues or if there is some other tack we could take  
> across this particular minefield.
>

There will be issues for sure, but this shouldn't stop W3C from working on  
it. Because if W3C doesn't do this, other will. And we will end up with N  
test-sites/specifications people will fight on.

/g

> * Specifically those like html5ltest that are often mistaken for  
> measures of goodness.


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 07:14:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC