W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Testing call this Monday

From: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:21:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4D94F075.50101@gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On 03/31/2011 03:01 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> Folks,
>
> It looks like everyone can be on the call this Monday at 9am ET. Let's
> meet on #testing as usual.

Not sure who "everyone" is.

> On the testing interest group: this idea came out of Jeff to give a
> "formal" status within W3C, raise the profile of the project, and allow
> others to feel they're welcome to contribute to the project. Mike is
> working on a draft charter for that. As usual, the trick is to restrict
> the scope of the Group so that folks don't think we're going to test
> everything everywhere. Maybe something along the lines of "HTML5 Testing
> Interest Group"

What about "Web Browsers Testing"? The term "HTML5" is already overloaded.

> but we'll still need to differentiate it from the HTML5
> test suite task force. The goal of the interest group would not be to
> produce tests in any case. By the way, we would need to find a chair (or
> co-chairs?) for the IG and it would be nice if we avoid having me on the
> critical path. On the other end, I have a vested interest in ensuring
> that the testing project is successful so I'm ok to be the default
> candidate to chair.
>
> On the starting point for the framework: I wonder how long we should
> take to close the loop on that one. Either we take the current HTML
> framework and continue it, or we use an other one for the starting
> point. In any case, I would hate for us starting from scratch and
> reinventing the wheel. James mentioned that he has one that can run the
> HTML5 parsers already so maybe we could explore that path as well? Also, we'll
> need to figure if the framework to be used on desktop browsers will be
> the same one as the framework to be used on mobile browsers. Again, if
> we can avoid duplicating efforts, that would be better. It may well be
> that we start on a common framework and branch it later on.

Using the testharness.js the HTMLWG uses makes the most sense to me. (As 
well as reftests [1] as used by the CSSWG for visual tests.)

Ms2ger

[1] http://wiki.csswg.org/test/reftest
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 21:22:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 March 2011 21:22:33 GMT