Re: I can't code, but...

Inanis Broke wrote:

>A test suite sounds like a good idea, as long as it's "cheat proof." For me,

	This is part of why I would want the code for the browser, as I
mentioned several e-mails ago earlier in this thread.  Cheating could
possibly become an issue, since I would assume that the testing process
would be avaliable for public review.  With this knowledge, Netscape could,
for instance, make sure that the proper Java data bindings to make the
OBJECT element work with specific mime types are built into the browser and
work only during the W3C's test, keeping their certificate system in tact.
While I realize that it is unlikely that browser makers would want to
implement features that would pass only the test, it would be necessary to
be ready for all situations.

>though, the question still remains: if we all really want a program to
>encourage better conformance to w3c standards, (i.e. "100% HTML4/CSS
>Compliance," or 90% or 80%, etc,) how do we go about at least letting the
>w3c / Web industry know that we think it's a good idea, or finding out if /
>why the w3c / Web industry thinks that such a program intended to encourage
>full w3c compliance as fast as possible is a bad idea?

	I'll leave this on to the W3C people on the list.

>Also, does anyone know if there are pages showing information about the
>development or existence of test suites similar to the one for CSS1 which
>currently exists?

	I don't know of any pages, but there are a few people I am going to
try to contact that may be able to provide this type of information.  If
they are willing, mabey they will even collaborate with the W3C on the
project.  Will report back on this later.

Red Bird Island Productions
Gordon Worley

Received on Thursday, 7 January 1999 22:06:45 UTC