Re: deleting w3c-test.org/{webapps,webevents,web-platform-tests} creates lots of 404s

On 3/21/14 11:32 AM, ext Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:11 AM, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk 
> <mailto:james@hoppipolla.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Yes, I think implementation reports should specify which version
>     of the testsuite they used. I don't think that linking to the most
>     recent version of the tests on w3c-test.org <http://w3c-test.org>
>     is appropriate; if you want to precisely recreate an
>     implementation report you should check out the files and do it
>     locally. I consider w3c-test to be a convenient service to remove
>     overhead of casually running tests, not the source of all truth,
>     so I don't think we should complicate it to make unusual use cases
>     easier.
>
>
> If this is the purpose of w3c-test.org <http://w3c-test.org>, then we 
> should not allow specs or implementation reports to reference lints to 
> tests or suites on it directly.

Agree. And given the Consortium appears to have no interest in some type 
of persistence policy for these files, to help avoid future surprises, 
it seems a bit remiss for there not to be some type of WARNING (file) at 
the root that clearly indicates something like `Any and all files could 
be deleted, without warning, at any time. As such, do _NOT_ link to any 
file in this repo`.

> Given that there already are specs that reference it, it one 
> possibility would be to move w3c-test.org <http://w3c-test.org> to a 
> new name and provide a forwarding site on the old name that makes the 
> old links work.

SGTM.


> I suspect that referencing GitHub repos directly might actually make 
> the problem worse, as you'd then be assuming that (a) GitHub will be 
> around forever and (b) you won't find some other service you'd rather 
> use 5 years from now.

Agree.

-AB

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 13:59:11 UTC