- From: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:48:51 -0800
- To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTinDeoAcvVhtUNhMCSAr3KtHJuzhq9P=U29Q-Tqs@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, folks, To move forward to conformance testing for upcoming drafts of this working group, here is a proposal of the best practices that the WebPerf WG will follow. In short, we should be carrying out testing exercises similar to the HTML WG: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing Highlights: * All test cases for the WebPerf WG should be located under W3C's Mercurial repository http://test.w3.org/webperf/tests/. (See more below.) I've setup submission/ and approved/ directories there as reference. * When submitting a new test, preferably it's checked into http://test.w3.org/webperf/tests/submission/<user-or-company>/<feature>. But considering accessing the repository requires W3C membership, it's possible for a new test to be located under other public places. * A submitted test needs to be approved. The approval process is similar to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Approval/. * Once a test is approved by the WG, it is required to be placed under the Mercurial repository http://test.w3.org/webperf/tests/approved/<feature> Some other thoughts: * Each browser vendor will be responsible for running the tests and the result. I would recommend having a contact person from each vendor for that matter. AIs: * Have a page linked off the WG home page to demonstrate more details about these steps. * Setup corresponding product and components for WebPerf on Bugzilla<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/> . Feedback? Ideas? cheers, Zhiheng
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 07:49:22 UTC