- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:23:38 +0900
- To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, public-test-infra@w3.org
> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:48, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: > > On 29/10/15 11:37, fantasai wrote: > >> I disagree with this. I think we should reduce the metadata, >> but there are some things (e.g. spec section associations) >> that we need to keep. > > FWIW the counterpoint to this is that people have and will point-blank refuse to submit tests when there are requirements for metadata beyond what is strictly needed to make the tests run. > > I understand why this additional metadata is nice to have particularly when you come back to tests later, but requiring it will cause people to not upstream tests that they otherwise would have. I don't have a great solution for you, but consider if they are ways to make more of the metadata implicit in e.g. the directory structure, file naming, <title> element, etc. I think that a test that has neither a pointer to the spec section it is testing nor an explicit assertion is close to being unusable, unreviewable, and unmaintainable, and that we don't loose much if it is not being submitted. We should reduce the amount of metadata required, but not to 0. - Florian
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 07:24:11 UTC