- From: Hallvord R. M. Steen <hallvord@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:53:50 +0200
- To: "Carmelo Montanez" <carmelo@nist.gov>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:12:04 +0200, Carmelo Montanez <carmelo@nist.gov> wrote: > I am getting ready to submit a number of tests and wanted to get your > feedback on format. We already agreed > on a template a few weeks back. This follows on that format. Just > wanted to get your view before I go forward. > See attached files. Hi Carmelo, I don't quite see how the structure of your format is meant to evolve - the tests are not very complex but there is still too much utility code that should be in a framework inside the scripts itself, and it all relies too much on global variables and global functions in ad-hoc "underscore-namespaces" like w3c_ and NIST_. Perhaps you have some documentation on the agreed format? Also a bit odd that you won't get correct pass/fail output in UAs without advanced CSS support - generated content, even. That alone makes the test suite useless for comparing compliance to older browsers or your past versions. Have you considered simply using the YUI-test framework? I think it is pretty well structured and clean. I admit I have not written any serious number of tests with it but I work on analysing those that come with YUI pretty often and it always strikes me as better than other frameworks I know - stuff I maintain or have written. > Format 1 includes the files: > NIST_wheel_001.html > NIST_wheel_002.html > NIST_functions.js > > Format 2 includes: > > NIST_wheel_format2_001.html > NIST_wheel_002_format2.html > NIST_Functions_format2.js > > Thanks, > Carmelo Montanez -- Hallvord R. M. Steen Core QA JavaScript tester, Opera Software http://www.opera.com/ Opera - simply the best Internet experience
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 23:54:29 UTC