W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: IE Team's Feedback on the XHR Draft

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:07:17 +0530
To: "Sunava Dutta" <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-webapi@w3.org" <public-webapi@w3.org>, "Gideon Cohn" <gidco@windows.microsoft.com>, "Zhenbin Xu" <zhenbinx@windows.microsoft.com>, "Marc Silbey" <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, "Ahmed Kamel" <Ahmed.Kamel@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.t586gfdcwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:39:07 +0530, Sunava Dutta  
<sunavad@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Thanks Charles.
> I agree with your plan...
...
> Running a full-fledged test suite against our browsers to verify interop  
> is a critical next step that should happen before CR. We’d appreciate it  
> if the tests can be matched with the spec by linking the relevant test  
> to the spec section if possible (may be tough) or linking them at the  
> bottom. This is a detailed spec and it will help.

I think we need to work through these as a group and check where the tests  
match. Expecting Anne to do all that is unreasonable (apart from anything  
else, as his manager I would like him to work on other stuff too).

> We’ve run the test suites as promised in addition to giving feedback. I  
> realize the tests may be incomplete and lots of reference files are not  
> accessible to us. For interoperability, if a test does fail on all  
> browsers (right now 32 fail on 4 major browsers using the incomplete  
> existing suite. See bottom) I would say it would be useful to have a  
> plan for a default given that this is an existing feature that’s been on  
> the web for a decade? ... Either way, we recommend resolving these  
> deltas to determine behavior

Yep. Essentially it seems we are agreed to go to last call, but we will  
need to have some reasonable belief that people will fix implementations  
to pass tests (or decide that we should change the spec) if we expect to  
get out of CR.

By the way, we welcome tests from anyone. We use Anne's because he has  
worked hard to make them, but there is no reason he should be the sole  
source of tests.

> and LC may be an appropriate time to do this.

Yes, I think that is the emerging consensus...

> Would it be possible once the tests are relatively stable to package  
> them (including reference files) and send us a copy?

We will have them on the Web - you have to fetch your own copy :) But yes,  
it should be possible to download a package for local use once we have an  
official test suite.

> Reemphasizing what Chris mentions, we do believe that detail is good as  
> long as it's readable and easy to assimilate. I humbly suggest removing  
> or in the minimum mentioning which parts are UA implementation details  
> that are not necessarily binding...

Basically, you either convince the editor directly about editing changes,  
or you need to propose specific changes to the group (which can override  
the editor even on editorial matters) so it can make a decision. Both of  
these are legitimate processes, but in the latter you're unlikely to make  
much headway without very clear proposals (i.e. "change FOO to read BAR").

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2008 10:37:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 9 February 2008 10:37:51 GMT