- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 06:50:25 -0400
- To: ext Julian Aubourg <j@ubourg.net>
- CC: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, public-scriptlib@w3.org, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, ext Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>
[ My previous response was accidentally sent before it should have been (delete it) ... ] On 5/17/12 7:03 PM, ext Julian Aubourg wrote: > To me the biggest Comments on all of WebApps' specs are always welcome, regardless of where the spec is in the W3C's Recommendation process. > I've been meaning to do a test suite to help provide guidance to > implementors (something I figure would be much more useful than yet > another round of specs) but I admit I haven't got to it yet. > > Dunno how people feel about this, but I think providing test suites > that browsers could test against as a way to prevent regressions and > inconsistencies could help a lot as a starting point. The group's PubStatus page <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus> enumerates each spec and each spec has (or will have): 1) a link to the spec's Bugzilla component; 2) a link to the spec's Test suite. We have a need for test cases for just about every spec. The test submission process is described in <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Submission>. For WebApps' testing related discussions, please use group's public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org list. -Thanks, AB
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 10:51:03 UTC