W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org > September 2013

Re: [testtwf-shenzhen] Need your input: Writing Webapps tests at TestTWF

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:44:17 -0700
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
CC: "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org" <public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org>, "public-testtwf-planning@w3.org" <public-testtwf-planning@w3.org>, "'public-test-infra@w3.org'" <public-test-infra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE68CDB3.426B3%rhauck@adobe.com>


On 9/25/13 5:26 PM, "Tobie Langel" <tobie@w3.org> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Rebecca Hauck wrote:
>> I think the biggest challenge is
>> sorting out and clearly communicating the WG-specific requirements for
>> tests.
>
>We should make every possible effort to limit WG-sepcific requirements.
>There are very few legitimate needs for those. On the other hand, they
>make the whole experience of contributing to the testing effort much,
>much worse.

Good point, you're right. I probably used the wrong phrase there anyway. I
was thinking along the lines of requirements for specific features/areas.
I recall there being some extra stuff needed by the WebRTC folks in Paris,
for example. I think the same for IndexedDB, but my memory is fuzzy on
that one.  Generally anything more than a text editor + a browser that
test authors would need or find very helpful when authoring would be great
to have documented for the event.

Of course, there is the issue of test metadata that we require and
leverage in the CSSWG that is not such a hard requirement from other WGs.
I don't intend to start another strand of that debate by bringing it up
again here, but it's a reality we have to deal with at the event and for
the foreseeable future.

-Rebecca
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 00:44:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:57:41 UTC