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

RE: Ideas of useful deliverables for this group

From: Rosenthal, Lynne <lsr@email.nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:29:37 -0500
Message-ID: <60DE4C815920CA41AF6CC5CFDA9CC849039E2B0D@WSXG03.campus.nist.gov>
To: <public-mwts@w3.org>

All

This is a nice problem to have -- that is, having a few possibilities and being able to choose and an excellent group of people to work on it.  It may be worthwhile to consider a few things in deciding what to pursue:
1. What would do the most good - e.g., be useful, have an impact, make a difference, etc. 
2. What is the problem we are trying to solve
3. Is there a specification, use case or requirements for which we are building tests/tools (this is necessary to have if we do conformance tests)
4. What is the interest of the group
5. What is the timeframe for producing something useful

It would be great to be able to produce something in a very short timeframe.  This would establish the WG and possibly get others interested in the WG. Thus, it may make sense to pursue 2 efforts - one a short term deliverable (which may not be the ideal, most useful tool) and the other, a longer term development of a needed tests/tool that would a) target conformance, b) improve devices, c) foster adoption, d) any or all these.  

Regards
Lynne


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-mwts-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mwts-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:10 AM
> To: Allen Wang
> Cc: public-mwts@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ideas of useful deliverables for this group
> 
> 
> Hi Allen,
> 
> Le jeudi 18 janvier 2007 à 16:54 -0800, Allen Wang a écrit :
> > >* 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.
> > >
> >
> > This certainly is an interesting idea. However, it seems that focusing
> > on non-conformance test suites may contradict to our charter:
> >
> > "The test suites ... could be suitable for checking conformance of user
> > agents to specifications in the mobile Web space."
> 
> Note the "could"; in other words, this is not an obligation of our
> charter, but a possible direction.
> 
> > So I suggest we as the members still focus on the conformance part of
> > the test suite but leave the non-conformance part largely to the
> > community, as Dom suggested.
> 
> That sounds good in theory, but if we want the latter part to happen, we
> would need to provide the infrastructure to do so - e.g. a system to
> contribute tests cases, a test harness, a test reporting system, etc. We
> would also likely need to review the submissions of test cases; could
> you clarify whether you think we shouldn't even provide that
> infrastructure and only focus on conformance tests suites?
> 
> > Also, we may want to get input from the Mobile Web Initiative group as
> > they may have a better understanding of the priorities of our group.
> 
> At this point, I think it's really up to us to decide, based on our
> evaluation of the needs from the community, vendors, etc.
> 
> Dom
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 19 January 2007 12:29:50 GMT

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