- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:10:32 +0100
- To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
On 12/17/2014 07:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/17/14, 7:13 AM, Harry Halpin wrote: >> But to put this into perspecive, if we want ShadowDOM quality >> tests, there's still lots more to do. > > Just to note, the shadow DOM tests are not very good. They didn't catch > any of the many cases in which Google's implementation totally didn't > match the spec, because they only did basic functionality testing, not > interesting edge case testing. What in your opinion is a *good* test suite? We are trying to do labor/time estimates inside W3C right now. There's all sorts of levels of complexity one can do with testing, and I think how much testing we do depends on how much the WG can do and if W3C can be successful in more resources. Alot depends on implementers - if they are totally happy with their current test-suites/interop, then we can do less, but we'd like the best quality test-suite we can get within our resources/time. cheers, harry > > -Boris >
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 12:10:40 UTC