Re: IE Team's Feedback on the XHR Draft

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:21:18 +0530, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:22:59 +0530, Chris Wilson  
>> <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) In fact, on that note, we're interested to see the test suite be  
>>> linked, normatively if necessary.
>>
>> Yes. I think this is a valuable piece of feedback. Currently W3C  
>> process doesn't require test suites until you're trying to get out of  
>> CR and I think it would be better to have them earlier.
>
> I agree that official test suites should be developed earlier than CR.

Noted.

> ... Fortunately, we have unofficial test suites as a starting point.

Yep.

> However, I think that per standard practice the test suite should not be  
> considered normative, only the text of the spec.

This is the case traditionally for W3C which was once very test-shy and  
spec-friendly. I think that the moves towards accepting tests as normative  
is not necessarily a bad idea...

> In particular, conformance requirements that are not covered by a test  
> must still be binding,

I agree with this

> and in case of conflict between the test suite and the spec, the spec  
> must win.

I'm not so sure about this. Interpreting test results is often easier to  
do unambiguously than interpreting spec language. Ultimately whether we  
endorse the spec or a test, we have to carefully look at them both and do  
our best to ensure they really do match...

> Of course, if the test suite and the spec ever disagree we will have to  
> publish bug fixes to the test suite or errata to the spec, but in the  
> meantime we need to be clear which is normative.

agreed.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Received on Saturday, 9 February 2008 08:47:20 UTC