W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Feature List

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:00:41 +0100
To: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>, "Anthony Kukurikos" <anthony.kukurikos@gmail.com>
Cc: "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.umbanfuvwxe0ny@widsithpro.local>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:15:36 +0100, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>  
wrote:

> Anthony Kukurikos wrote:
>> ...One question: should we have tests for the
>> cardinalities of each include/exclude element? It is not a matter of
>> workload as it is trivial, I just don't know if it facilitates the
>> readability of the TS doc (which is of course an important matter but  
>> not as important as its usefulness).
>
> It's a matter of striking a balance between 'proving everything works'  
> and going over the top with a separate test for every last thing. I  
> lumped the IRI constraints together as a compromise on this. It's only  
> in/excludepathcontains and in/excluderegex that's allowed more than once  
> anyway - the rest are all 0 or 1.
>
> If you have a good test to hand, good - use it, but let's not over do it!

Hmm. I think it is good to use any tests we have - they all help improve  
the quality of implementations (or find bugs). The balance question is  
more one of judging whether we even have enough tests of the different  
aspects to make a reasonable claim that we are done...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2008 15:01:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:14 GMT