- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:27:06 -0400
- To: ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mar/31/2011 10:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: > On Mar 31, 2011, at 14:04 , Arthur Barstow wrote: >> 1. What is the level of uptake of testharness.js within the HTML WG and other WGs? If any of these groups provide "usage" information, what are the URIs? Do any WGs make testharness.js's use Mandatory? Currently, its usage in the above documents makes its usage a "Should". > DAP hasn't yet started writing tests in earnest, but as some of our documents are nearing LC we're getting ready for it. We've resolved to use testharness.js as well. We haven't captured it as a MUST, but given that we have a bunch of specs and that we expect work to be distributed to many people we expect to use it throughout — so pretty much a tacit MUST. Yes, I think that makes sense for DAP (which, AFAIU, generally will not have legacy test suites to leverage). In the case of WebApps, I would expect some vendors to have already created test suites for specs they have deployed (e.g. Web Storage, Server-sent Events). In those cases, I do not think we want a testharness.js dependency to block them from contributing those test suites to the W3C. -Art Barstow
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 14:27:34 UTC