W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Last item for beta -- new MAIN_DOCUMENT test

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:06:08 -0500
Message-ID: <e920a71c0802050806t6f28b82el9b6d1c913f6879ab@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

OK, I think the status is: we put out an alpha, and collected public
feedback for months, as well as continued our own investigations. We
identified and fixed about 20 issues, and at the moment have no major
issues outstanding, and few others. We think the current version is
significantly improved beyond the alpha and so want to formally
produce another release to gather more public feedback.

But my question was about some particular changes I see in the test
output recently -- want to make sure they are intentional, since I
think we need to have been not making big changes in the last few
weeks. There are actually quite a lot of test failures now, so we need
to sort those out, and I need the help in some cases of folks that
made the changes.


On Feb 5, 2008 3:14 AM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> The Working Group gave its blessing for the Task Force to sign off on
> beta when it thinks it is ready. For the sake of formality can we please
> identify what we status we think we have achieved in order to go ahead
> with the beta.
> Thanks
> Jo
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-
> > checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Owen
> > Sent: 05 February 2008 05:03
> > To: public-mobileok-checker
> > Subject: Last item for beta -- new MAIN_DOCUMENT test
> >
> >
> > Currently the unit tests fail, each of them, since there is a new test
> > result titled "MAIN_DOCUMENT". Just checking that we're all OK with
> > introducing this new element to cover, I assume, errors that occur in
> > the document as a whole? we don't really define a "MAIN_DOCUMENT" test
> > in mobileOK Basic and just imply that if the test document can't be
> > retrieved, the other test results don't have meaning.
> >
> > I don't mind the current setup, just checking for opinion on this
> > before we bless this as a beta.
> >
> > Sean
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 16:06:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:20 UTC