- 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