- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:25:02 +0100
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "James Graham" <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: "Tobie Langel" <tobie@fb.com>, public-coremob@w3.org
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:13:42 +0100, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed 29 Feb 2012 02:41:33 PM CET, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> #2 Test suite - it's good to see any initiative identify test cases as
>> a priority. It seems to me the most effective use of the CG's testing
>> resources for the specs within the CG's interest, would be to directly
>> contribute to existing test suites rather than for the CG to create its
>> own test suite(s). Additionally, if there are test suite gaps for specs
>> of interest, the CG's testing resources should be directed to the
>> relevant WG. [For example, see WebApps' "Testing" column in
>> <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus> for gaps in WebApps'
>> test suites e.g. File API spec.] Let's please not duplicate testing
>> resources.
>
> Yes, I strongly agree with this. If the group wants to release its own
> *presentation* of test results according to some mobile-centric view of
> what's important that's fine (although I note upfront that there are
> deep issues with this kind of thing; it is very hard to make things fair
> and sets bad incentives for contributers). But all the tests should be
> drawn from existing test repositories for HTML, WebApps, CSS, etc. and
> any new tests should be contributed directed to those repositories.
Couldn't agree more. But that is what I thought is already proposed - if
so this is an editorial clarification.
Or did I miss something?
cheers
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:25:44 UTC