- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:11:26 +0100
- To: public-test-infra@w3.org
On 21/09/17 03:22, Alan Stearns wrote: > On 9/20/17, 7:02 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > On 09/15/2017 06:54 AM, James Graham wrote: > > In practice anyone sufficiently knowledgeable to be interacting > > with a test can likely identify the relevant parts of the specs > > rather quickly. > > As a CSS spec editor who was tasked with reviewing some totally > uncommented layout tests, I disagree with this statement. > > And here’s a recent non-CSS example: http://logs.glob.uno/?c=freenode%23whatwg&s=29+Aug+2017&e=29+Aug+2017&h=comment#c1036038 > > I expect wanderview is sufficiently knowledgeable, but could have benefitted from some test comments/metadata there. I;m obviously not claiming that comments have no value. But a link to the spec is not a comment, it's less precise than a well-written comment to explain the details of what the test author believed the test was testing. Nevertheless I agree that it has some value. But requiring links to pass the link also has a cost in terms of developers' willingness to contribute tests. Given the relative lack of vendor contributions to CSS tests I claim that reducing the barrier to entry is a more significant win to the platform as a whole than the value offered by a mandatory spec link.
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2017 15:11:55 UTC