Test Suites Summary

I was reviewing the telecon notes, and I don't think this information was captured well so I wanted to confirm that we were all on the same page.

The SVG 1.1 Test do not test conformance, but rather test some elements of the implementability of the spec.  Because of this, we are giving the wrong perception to developers.
One action taken here was to update the SVG Test Page to read :" These tests, and the corresponding implementation reports are intended not to certify implementations as conforming, but rather the interoperable implementability of the specification itself."

The other note was that, this being the case, we as the WG need to remain vendor neutral. Despite Jeff's effort here, linking from the SVG WG to Codedread which states boldly at the top of the page "NOTE: These web pages look much better in a modern browser like Firefox, Opera or Safari or Chrome. Please consider downloading and using one of these fine browsers" as Doug noted by definition is biased and we need to remove that link.
The action is to remove this link as soon as possible.

The primary outcome however of this discussion is that we need to provide information to developers about the interoperable set of SVG across browsers in a vendor neutral way.  We are at risk that if the public relies the SVG Test suite to understand interoperability of browser implementations, as that view will be skewed and developers are likely to not adopt SVG.   And that this is not the desired result.  While I offered to submit the right set of tests to the SVG WG from Microsoft, it was unanimously agreed that this would take up significant time from the WG and this would be "very bad for morale to hold up 1.1se while the test suite gets bigger" because it took a year to do this for 1.2 Tiny.  I certainly don't want to hold up 2nd edition.  Doug suggested that Microsoft work with the SVG Interest Group to redefine the "SVG Torture Tests" to be a more accurately balanced set of SVG tests that will leave developers with a clear understanding that the vast majority of modules (20/23) will be available to them across browser after IE9 ships.

I want to make sure we are all on the same page as this discussion was brought up before and I feel like we have a more concrete set of actions this time.

Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 16:39:23 UTC