- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 07:52:52 -0700
- To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
- Cc: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> We want to end up with a stable suite of tests over which there is as little > confusion as possible. Do you have test coverage targets? Such as to test 90% of the DOM L2 spec? One of my general concerns is that stability shouldn't take precedence over being thorough ... it's easy to get stability by avoiding the parts of the spec where implementors and specs diverge visibly. That is, by avoiding real trouble spots that turn up during testing! I've got a strong preference to see those trouble spots get resolved, so that applications won't trip over them. It sounds like the process may be more geared to avoiding such trouble spots than exploring/resolving the differences that extensive testing will likely uncover. - Dave > So for example, a test expecting one outcome turns from > a positive test to a negative test ... and a new test, with the > "correct" outcome, is created. For the original test, only the > metadata changes ...
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 10:53:59 UTC