- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:10:56 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, public-test-infra@w3.org
On Monday, September 23, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 23/09/2013 11:48 , James Graham wrote: > > Therefore I conclude that we should take option 1); simply consider > > "should" level conditions in the spec as untestable (for us) as other > > implementation-specific requirements on UI. If you really want to call > > out these somehow, I would be happy for people to write should.txt files > > describing all the should level conditions to guide people writing > > implementation-specific tests. > > I would opt for a "modified (1)". By default, don't test SHOULD (they > normally aren't testable) but allow people to use their better judgement > and include tests for SHOULD in cases where they feel the specification > was exceedingly cautious. Out of curiosity, what's your judgement re the linked pull request[1]? Should these reqs be tested? --tobie --- [1]: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/306
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 11:10:35 UTC