- From: Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:02:52 +0000
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Yes, although there are some details for which we probably have to pave our own cowpath. Some thoughts below: 1. Requirements for which one can write "generic" test cases should be defined in the base spec. These test cases can be imported and reused by an extension spec test suite as is. Extension specs would pull in these requirements via the normative dependency. I guess this is the easy part. 1. Requirements that need to be adapted for the extension specs to be meaningful. This is the harder part, I guess. One way would be to mark such "abstract requirements" as non-normative content in the Generic Sensor API, and then in the Conformance section of each extension specification say: * UAs conforming to this [extension specification], must adapt and import X, Y, Z requirements, defined in the Generic Sensor API. * ... and in the Generic Sensor API have a non-normative example requirement X (to borrow your example): [Foobar Sensor API spec] must define a [FoobarSensorReading] interface that corresponds to the [FoobarSensor] interface [Foobar Sensor API spec] defines. Better ideas? -- GitHub Notification of comment by anssiko Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/84#issuecomment-177862649 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 1 February 2016 09:02:54 UTC