Re: Alternate proposal on testing requirements

On 05/02/2011 02:55 PM, Michael Cooper wrote:
> As some on this list know, I've felt that the current testing
> requirements page<>  didn't
> fully capture what I envisioned. I have finally managed to bang out a
> rough version of my view on testing requirements
> <>. I've attempted to
> incorporate what I understand of others' requirements but know I've left
> some stuff out. I hope the organization at least is helpful, and I think
> many of the specifics I suggest were not called out as such before.

FWIW this seems to miss the fact that there can be > 1 test per file as 
well as > 1 files per test. In general trying to keep track of all the 
relationships is a really hard job. I don't suggest that we try to e.g. 
track all the subresources used by each test.

In general (and not just relating to that document) though, I am 
slightly concerned that there is an element of architecture-astronautics 
creeping in. In particular I doubt there there is a significant overlap 
between the testing materials and methodologies for technologies such as 
web browsers, editors, and a11y tools. I am loathe to create 
requirements that imply any work done by this group has to address all 
those cases simultaneously rather than allowing the communities 
interested in each to develop the tools they need to solve their own 
problems. I expect the latter approach will work better for everyone 
involved; allowing rapid progress through developments of solutions that 
meet the requirments of one community well rather than doing a poor job 
trying to serve multiple communities all at once.

Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 14:25:11 UTC