W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [proximity] Test contribution (was: use of HTML's Function interface)

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:41:07 +0100
Message-Id: <A0861FBD-9058-42D2-BC72-39F9CA057B78@marcosc.com>
Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
To: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>


On 27 Jun 2012, at 17:24, Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi Marcos, All,
> 
> On 13.6.2012, at 23.08, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> 
>> The proximity tests I created reflect the use of HTML Function, and I've not received any further feedback, so I think I'm ready to contribute them to the W3C.  
> 
> Thanks! I added a pointer to your Proximity Events tests to the DAP home page.

Great! 

> 
> It seems you're using testharness.js properly and have the proper license boilerplate in all the relevant files so all should be good on that front. What's the coverage of the tests currently?

Full, I think - but that's for implementors /reviewers to provide feedback on. Would be nice to link tests to the spec... Might be some way of doing that.

> 
> All - Should we agreed on a test repo structure similar to that of the WebApps and HTML WG?

That is the one I used, as I was not sure but figured it was a good one. 

> Currently, there are at least three different ways people have done it for DAP tests, namely:
> 
>  http://w3c-test.org/dap/tests/vibration/
>  http://w3c-test.org/dap/proximity/tests/
>  http://w3c-test.org/dap/contacts/tests/
>  http://w3c-test.org/media-capture/
> 
> The structure used by at least WebApps and HTML WGs is described at:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Submission#Test_Repository_Structure
> 
> If people think aligning would be a good idea I could help organize the repo.

Agree. Also requires all tests submitted to be reviewed.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 19:41:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:54 UTC