- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:31:08 -0400
- To: ext James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, public-coremob@w3.org
On Apr 1, 2012, at 3:32 PM, ext James Graham wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> On 4/1/12 4:17 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> wrote: >> >>> Where is the criteria used to add a feature to the spec? >> >> It's right here: >> http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Specs/Coremob_Level_0 >> >>> It seems like for this spec to actually be useful, a criterion for adding >>> a feature to the spec should be a publicly available comprehensive test >>> suite for the feature. > > I don't think that will work. There is simply too much stuff that is untested or poorly tested at present. Well, I didn't say that meeting the above criterion would be easy ;-). > On the other hand it would be very useful for this document to either point to the existing public testsuite for features or note the lack of such a testsuite as a substantial problem that prevents browsers interoperating on untested features. Yes, I agree that would be useful and I can help with WebApps' specs. (It may also be useful to include links to test suites for OSS implementations of the spec. For example, if Webkit or Gecko or some other OSS has a test suite for feature X, that data (plus a link to the test suite) could be included.) > It would be even better if we could get people that are not already contributing to testsuites to do so. Yes. Besides the ring test Tobie mentioned, is any other member of this group intending to contribute tests? -AB
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 12:32:15 UTC