- From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:29:52 -0700
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
> >It is my opinion that we should be putting considerably more effort into >working with all implementors to ensure that they are actually running >the >tests that we are collecting. I doubt anyone disagrees with this. And you're probably right about implementors not running all or many of the W3C tests. The quandary is that implementors seem to want to only take tests (not authored by them) that are blessed by the W3C and the W3C wants implementors to bless the tests by running them. Perhaps part of "working with implementors" is 1) resetting their expectations on the state of W3C tests and 2) persuading them to regularly accept and run all tests in whatever state with the understanding that if something goes wrong, the onus is on the implementor to (re)review the test and resolve the inconsistency wherever it may lie. I'm personally thrilled that we're having this conversation. Even though the solution that emerges from this may not be immediately obvious, this thread gets to the very essence of What W3C Tests are For. -Rebecca p.s. Robin, you are just downright poetic sometimes
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 21:29:40 UTC