Re: Getting browser vendors running and submitting tests

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

>
> > On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:48, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On 29/10/15 11:37, fantasai wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree with this. I think we should reduce the metadata,
> >> but there are some things (e.g. spec section associations)
> >> that we need to keep.
> >
> > FWIW the counterpoint to this is that people have and will point-blank
> refuse to submit tests when there are requirements for metadata beyond what
> is strictly needed to make the tests run.
> >
> > I understand why this additional metadata is nice to have particularly
> when you come back to tests later, but requiring it will cause people to
> not upstream tests that they otherwise would have. I don't have a great
> solution for you, but consider if they are ways to make more of the
> metadata implicit in e.g. the directory structure, file naming, <title>
> element, etc.
>
> I think that a test that has neither a pointer to the spec section it is
> testing nor an explicit assertion is close to being unusable, unreviewable,
> and unmaintainable, and that we don't loose much if it is not being
> submitted.
>
> We should reduce the amount of metadata required, but not to 0.


That implies that many tests that browsers have are "unusable,
unreviewable, and unmaintainable", so I don't think that's a true
statement! After all, it seems likely that browsers would've changed what
they're doing if it were so bad.

/g