W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [widgets] test-cases for icons: some possible errors

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:34:30 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670912091534nf8c2cfbq875b5fa93445ad0b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, David Rogers <david.rogers@omtp.org>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2009, at 14:31 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
>> Actually, I have a problem with the way the test suite result are expressed. Since there is no normative algorithm for the selection of the actual displayed icon, why should the test suite results but so strict. In particular, why does an implementation need to list all icons, if its policy is to select the first one, correct according to the spec, and that matches its needs. For example, one could say:
>
> Agreed, I think we should test for what the *first* icon is in the list (the one that's selected). Listing all the others isn't useful, they're never used.
>

I agree that the strict ordering is irrelevant because of the reason
Cyril mentioned. And yeah, I agree that having multiple icon choices
was probably stupid idea :(But can we give it a month to see if anyone
does anything interesting with multiple icons in a list?). If everyone
ignores multiple icons, then we will chuck it out. A quicker route
might be to ask implementers what they want... I know that Robin wants
them gone, at least.

Cyril and Scott, is this feature any use to you? I'll ask the Bondi
guys (I've CC'd David).

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:35:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT