W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [HTMLWG] CfC: Adopt "Plan 2014" and make some specific related decisions

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:13:48 +0200
To: public-html@w3.org, "James Graham" <jgraham@opera.com>
Message-ID: <op.wmmedaju6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:11:22 +0200, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:

> On 10/22/2012 04:10 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 10/22/12 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> To turn this discussion more constructive, the problem that needs to be
>>> solved is the misconception that exists that the HTML5 specification is
>>> all that needs to be implemented
>> I think that what Jonas and Henri are concerned about is a parallel
>> problem, which is the misconception that if something is in a document
>> found on w3c.org then it's "a spec" and needs to be implemented, tested
>> for in homegrown conformance tests like html5test.com, and so forth.
>> This has been a problem even for technologies that have been formally
>> dropped by the W3C (e.g. WebSQL).
> One solution to this might be to suck the oxygen out of the market for  
> unofficial feature test pages*, by doing a better, more authoritative,  
> job ourselves.
> I have previously argued against making a big show of test results, and  
> I still think that there is a significant danger of creating perverse  
> incentives if people start creating tests not to improve implementation  
> quality, but to make themselves look good or — in very sad cases — to  
> make others look bad. But perhaps it is worth re-examining the issue and  
> seeing if there is a path that one can tread where we get the good  
> effects of more prominent reporting of test results, without the harm.
> I have been vaguely pondering the notion of assigning each test a  
> priority, so that an implementation that passed all the P1 tests would  
> have "basic support" for a feature, and one that passed all the P1-P5  
> tests would have "excellent support" for a feature, or something. That  
> might provide a reasonable balance between conformance tests as a  
> promotional tool — something which it is clear that the market desires,  
> regardless of what we may think — and conformance tests as a way of  
> actually improving interoperability.

I think this is actually a good idea. This also will also help get more  
test cases into the pool without promoting all of them immediately to a  
"MUST PASS" status (or dropping them all together)

> I have several concerns with this idea. It might be a lot of work, and  
> one certainly couldn't expect test submitters to do it.

A coordinated, well promoted and organized testing effort is a lot of work  
I think is time for the wider W3C community to work together on this to  
make testing a first class citizen (and not just something you need to get  
to Rec status)
This may be a good topic for discussion at TPAC.

> It might lead to test classification fights (but surely this would be  
> better than people fighting to drop tests altogether?). A single test  
> might fail for a P1 reason ("there is a huge security hole") or a P3  
> reason ("the wrong exception type is thrown"). I don't know if these are  
> insurmountable issues or if there is some other tack we could take  
> across this particular minefield.

There will be issues for sure, but this shouldn't stop W3C from working on  
it. Because if W3C doesn't do this, other will. And we will end up with N  
test-sites/specifications people will fight on.


> * Specifically those like html5ltest that are often mistaken for  
> measures of goodness.

Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 07:14:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC