- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:45:48 +0100
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- CC: Odin Hørthe 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 UTC