W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:45:48 +0100
Message-ID: <50FEB42C.7050906@w3.org>
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
CC: Odin HÝrthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 22/01/2013 14:48 , Tobie Langel wrote:
> Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which
> has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly at
> the technology level.

My understanding is that we don't have to care about spec-IP issues in 
test suites because when you contribute to a test suite you're not 
contributing to the spec's essential claims.

You *do* need to make the proper commitments for the test suite, but 
those are much lighter and can easily be extended to all.

> Whether we end up as:
>
>      w3c-tests/
>          deviceorienation/
>          html5/
>          pointerevents/
>          progressevent/
>          xmlhttprequest/
>
> or:
>
>      deviceorienation-tests/
>      html5-tests/
>      pointerevents-tests/
>      progressevent-tests/
>      xmlhttprequest-tests/
>
> Doesn't really matter (though I do find the former more readable). What
> bothers me however is how had to parse per-WG-organization is for
> newcomers.

That's why we're proposing to ditch per-WG anything here. The way 
html-testsuite is set up, we already have subdirectories for html, 
canvas2d, and microdata. Those are all from the HTML WG, but they're 
just listed as the individual specs. We can keep on adding more specs in 
there (the Web Crypto people are looking to do that).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 15:45:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT