- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:06:20 -0500
- To: ext Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, public-coremob@w3.org
On 2/29/12 11:25 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > 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? Well I hope we're all on the same page here. So given the following in the spec text: [[ All normative content will be specified exclusively by reference to the original standard defining the feature. Additional non-normative implementation guidance may be included. ]] Is the expectation: * The CG {will | expects to} create tests for its own "non-normative guidance" statements * If the CG identifies any testing related issues e.g. gaps, bugs, etc. for "normative references" the CG {will | expects to} contribute tests, patches, etc. to the relevant WG -Thanks, AB
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 18:07:16 UTC