- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:01:28 +0800
- To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-mwts@w3.org" <public-mwts@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Scott, On Jan 20, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Marcos, > > I think this is a really good piece of work - I'll be pointing a few > people from other spec orgs at the draft as its addressing a common > requirement. Excellent, thanks. > > (As an implementer I found the approach - especially the > implementation reports - really useful and easy to follow in > practice.) I'm happy to hear that you found them useful! In the future, I want to make the table sortable (e.g. group by verdict or only show fails, etc.), and allow the ability to remove implementations from table, so it's easier to compare (e.g., A vs B). if you have any further suggestions to make imp reports more usable, please let me know. > S > > On 19 Jan 2010, at 15:49, Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> Hi all, >> A draft of "A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Clauses and >> its Applications" in now available for review online [1]. For those >> that have not seen it, it basically just documents how we are >> standardizing the Widget specs and some basic QA processes: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2008/dev-ind-testing/extracting-test-assertions-pub.html >> >> Please consider this a working draft, as it likely contains typos, >> and a couple of half-baked ideas, etc. Comments are, of course, >> welcomed. It is expected that this document will be published as a >> working group note at some point in the future. >> >> Kind regards, >> Marcos >> >> Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: >>>> Hi Marcos, >>>> >>>> Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 à 17:45 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massi >>>> eux a >>>> écrit : >>>>> Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 à 17:44 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit : >>>>>> I was literally doing an editorial pass right now. I would >>>>>> appreciate >>>>>> another day or two to finish (and for you and the WG to have a >>>>>> chance to >>>>>> review the changes). If I check-in a draft by Thursday, could >>>>>> we aim to >>>>>> publish next week? >>>>> Sure, sounds good to me. Thanks for your help on this! >>>> >>>> Any news on your editing pass :) ? >>> >>> Sorry, I'm still working on it... it's taking a little longer than I >>> first anticipated :( I've rewritten most of it to describe a bit >>> more >>> clearly how the method was applied. >> >
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 05:05:15 UTC