W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > March 2013

RE: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 2/26/2013

From: Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:49:47 +0000
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: "'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0A605FCDA3A4DC45A98B0DDD1C5351A7055DC0BB@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
I'm open to this!

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael[tm] Smith [mailto:mike@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:37 PM
To: Kris Krueger
Cc: 'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'
Subject: Re: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 2/26/2013

Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>, 2013-02-28 00:39 +0000:

> Notes
> The group discussed how to leverage robins coverage report such that we start to enumerate sections of the spec that we should prioritize for testing.
> We agreed that that the task force should start to classify every section in the spec, such that each section would be labeled.
> For example...
>     A) no requirements
>     B) has conformance requirements, no tests, known interop issues (for example the-input-byte-stream)
>     C) has conformance requirements, has tests (canvas)
>     D) has conf reqs, no tests, no known interop issues

If you go that way it seems like you'd also need an "has conformance requirements, has tests, known interop issues".

Also, if a section has even just two tests it qualifies as "has tests". But obviously we're not just aiming for that, so I think we'd need to have some more granularity around "has tests"; e.g., "has tests but nowhere near
complete|enough" and "has [fairly] complete tests".


Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 01:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:46 UTC