W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mwts@w3.org > March 2009

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/Tests/track/actions/23

From: Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:37 +0100
Message-ID: <b24851260903310352w62435460l9875fc9276aa2b85@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-mwts <public-mwts@w3.org>
I looked at the device guidelines yesterday and today, and I made a
raft of harsh edits on my personal copy here:
http://dabase.com/guidelines.html

The diffs are here:
http://git.webconverger.org/?p=faq.git;a=history;f=guidelines.html

There is quite a few bits I didn't like. For example:

Since new standardised Web features could be implemented by plugins, I
thought it was totally unnecessary to say tests should avoid using
them. For example SVG implementations often rely on a plugin. Perhaps
I am little biased as I do work for company who hopes to compete by
implementing standardised device APIs (W3C widget spec) via a plugin.
http://webvm.net

Keyboard and pointing devices can be collapsed into one section.

Prerequisites - I hate this word. :-) But really, why does one have
explicitly state the multitude of features a test might require or
rather depend (slightly better word) on. Perhaps in a meta tag
http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/format#requirement-flags , but not
as explicit text.

I really didn't like the "Target devices" section. At first you say
that it's impossible to account for all possible constraints, and then
the next steps seems to be about assessing which technologies are
widely deployed?? That doesn't make sense to me. A tester should not
have to care about such decisions! Testers should be writing tests
against standards to verify conformance.

I didn't understand "Take care when triggering DOM operations that
they will not require downloading DTDs". I don't think it's important
for testers to include doctypes.

Kind regards,
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 10:53:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 March 2009 10:53:18 GMT