- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:40:57 +1100
- To: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Here are my thoughts on what we should have as the exit criteria for Web IDL. We talked about this at TPAC last year, so I think people are on board with this. We should find two instances of each Web IDL "feature" (whatever that means -- perhaps it means "attribute", "operation", etc., or it might be more fine grained such as "operation argument default value" or "operation argument of type unsigned long") in existing Web specifications and use them as the basis for testing the normative requirements on implementations that Web IDL describes. When we have a choice, we should choose "more stable" specifications/definitions. For example, when choosing what to base our IDL const tests on, choosing Node.ELEMENT_NODE would probably be a good choice. There will be some features which exist just for legacy purposes (like say [OverrideBuiltins]) which may not have more than one use in specifications. In these cases we won't need to wait for a second usage of that feature. We should make a test suite for all of these features, and the exit criteria should be two passing independent implementations of them.
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 00:41:30 UTC