Re: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/Tests/track/actions/23

* Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi> wrote:
> Perhaps I am little biased as I do work for company who hopes to 
> compete by implementing standardised device APIs (W3C widget spec) 
> via a plugin.

I'm equally biased against them. (c:

In the case of SVG or W3C widgets, it doesn't matter much where the
logic happens - it could be in the browser engine or in a plugin. But 
requiring a specific plugin from a specific vendor is usually a bad
idea.

> Keyboard and pointing devices can be collapsed into one section.

Agreed.

> Prerequisites - I hate this word. :-) But really, why does one have
> explicitly state the multitude of features a test might require or
> rather depend (slightly better word) on. 

This is the one type of meta data a tester would be interested in 
seeing when running through a set of tests. If there's a bunch of tests
testing Geolocation, and you either don't have this feature or have it
disabled, you'd want to know. They would be a different class of
failures.

You should not state every single feature your test depends on, of 
course. Only those that are often missing.

-- 
Wilhelm Joys Andersen
Core Systems, Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 14:48:24 UTC