- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:49:21 +0100
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Hi, so I've sort of been staring at coverage, the spec, and grepping through the test suite to find those top area where we're lacking coverage that I think can make a decent hit list. I've also looked through the submissions so as to factor in things that we have but that aren't counted just yet. I'm copying James for sanity checking. My first impression is that I'm wondering if trying to acquire more tests is really the top priority. It seems that for most large features that I have tried where tests are missing in the approved parts, we actually have a submission. This includes things like sandboxing, History, AppCache, rPH/rCH, and other stuff that might not be easy to tests. So I wonder if a better first focus wouldn't be to improve our throughput in accepting submissions. There 3500 files in there and 6600 occurrences of "assert_" (which probably maps to a fair bit more tests). Other than that, the list could include: • I am under the impression that we don't have much testing for "Browsing the Web" (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/browsers.html#browsing-the-web). • We have no discernible tests for <dialog>, <menu>, <details> and friends. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/interactive-elements.html • There are some tests about the new input types, but they are few and far between (and most seem to be about DND). Likewise <datalist> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/forms.html • We have nothing for <style scoped>. • We have nothing for <iframe seamless>. • We have nothing for <embed>. • We have very little for <base>, I think nothing that really tests it. I think that's the gist of it, overall. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 15:49:36 UTC