W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mwts@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Ideas of useful deliverables for this group

From: Carmelo Montanez <carmelo@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:13:33 -0500
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070117103426.05059b90@nist.gov>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-mwts@w3.org
Hey Dom:

Thanks for this.  See some of my ideas/comments embedded below.

Carmelo

At 10:03 AM 1/17/2007, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

>Hi,
>
>As promised, here is a summary of my ideas on what this group could be
>developing over the upcoming few months.
>
>I think we have several options, some of which can be mixed together:
>* we can look at the existing conformance tests suites out there as I
>started to describe in my previous message [1], and try to re-package
>them, maybe contributing to make them more complete and more useful for
>user agent developers.
>
>* we can focus on making these tests suites more easily available/usable
>by the web community at large, so that we can invite individuals to test
>the conformance of the user agents they use and make it generate reports
>that help web developers know what bugs exist in what browsers; the idea
>would be to generate reports   la:
>http://www.westciv.com/style_master/academy/browser_support/basic_concepts.html
>but on a bigger scale (many more browsers), and with a collaborative
>approach

This should be the least we should strive for and 
definitely should be a part of our
deliverables.  Attached is a starting frameworks that I put together last
year.  It is by no means complete or normative.

>* we can try and create a set of "acid tests" for mobile web browsers, 
>la:
>http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/
>with the idea of testing the integration of several technologies in
>rather complex arrangements

This approach seems fine for complex arrangements  and interaction of features.
This particular approach (acid) seems to be combining a lot of things
at the same time.

>* another approach that I think would be interesting to consider is to
>focus on non-conformance tests suites (!); the idea would be to assemble
>and create tests cases that wouldn't focus so much on whether a given
>browser conforms to a given specification, but instead, to identify
>common browsers behaviors for things that are un- or ill-specified, and
>that web developers need data on.
>For instance, during our work on the mobile web best practices, there
>were at least 2 occasions where we needed a good survey of behaviors of
>existing mobile user agents, and came up with a series of simple tests
>to identify these behaviors:
>http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/techs/XhtmlBasic11Support
>http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/techs/EncodingDeclarationSupport
>(while I have used a pass/fail color scheme in these reports, it doesn't
>actually mean that the user agent is buggy per se, but only that it
>didn't yield a behavior one may have wished it would)
>Generally speaking, should we take that option, I think we would need a
>strong collaboration with web developer communities, so that we could
>get contributions of tests cases for well-known authoring techniques.
>There are several existing other small tests suites that would fall
>under that category, and that I think would be a good starting basis for
>such an effort:
>http://www.paxmodept.com/pan/index.xhtml
>http://t.wurfl.com/
>http://www.cameronmoll.com/mobile/mkp/
>(and most likely, more of them)
>

I would love to see mobile browser developers 
provides us with a set of areas/issue they
will like to see address and developed test 
for.  It can be a starting point for a test suite
of this sort.

>I think each of these approaches has its own merit, and would certainly
>be happy to work on any of these, although I confess I have a slight
>preference for the last one as it would probably fill a need that no
>other existing efforts have filled so far.
>
>Some of these plans may require that we use rather specific software
>solutions:
>* if we invite the web community to submit tests results, we would need
>a system to log tests results, and probably doing so in a
>mobile-friendly fashion
>* if we invite tests cases contributions, we would need a submission
>system that takes into account the various policies in place at W3C on
>this topic (e.g. [2])
>* if we develop tests cases or review existing tests cases, we would
>probably need some form of tests cases management system

All of these are great topics for the face to face next week.

>Sorry this mail is so long, but I think it summarizes most of my
>thinking on the topic at this point; I would very much like to get
>feedback on the various ideas exposed here.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dom
>
>1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mwts/2007Jan/0007.html
>2. http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-testcases.html




Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 16:14:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:07 GMT