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

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

From: Wilhelm Joys Andersen <wilhelmja@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:49:48 +0200
To: public-mwts@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.urnvhasym3w6te@kugalskapet>
* Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi> wrote:
> 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.

I'm equally biased against them. (c:

In the case of SVG or W3C widgets, it doesn't matter much where the
logic happens - it could be in the browser engine or in a plugin. But 
requiring a specific plugin from a specific vendor is usually a bad

> 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. 

This is the one type of meta data a tester would be interested in 
seeing when running through a set of tests. If there's a bunch of tests
testing Geolocation, and you either don't have this feature or have it
disabled, you'd want to know. They would be a different class of

You should not state every single feature your test depends on, of 
course. Only those that are often missing.

Wilhelm Joys Andersen
Core Systems, Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 14:48:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:08:03 UTC