- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:24:02 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/18/12 2:12 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > I guess this really applies to Section 4 in the spec (ECMAScript binding). The rest can't be tested because the spec does not really define WebIDL Parsers as a conformance class (or it's targeted at spec Editors). > > Though one could write an actual parser, throw various WebIDL at it, and > see if it's valid.... > > That will need to happen anyway, for the whole "two implementations" bit. > > This could be made trivial is the Editor marked up the RFC2119 keywords. For example: > > > > <p>The foo<em class="ct">MUST</em> do something.</p> > > Not exactly. A single MUST can correspond to a long list of testable > assertions. That's fine. It just gives us a hook to go from. Like if it says: <p>The foo<em class="ct">MUST</em> run the bar algorithm.</p> And the bar algorithm contains 50 steps. At least you have a good collection of conformance requirements and know how to hook them up to algorithms. Naturally, you then need to write the tests for each algorithm. If anything, it saves a bit of time. -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:24:34 UTC