RE: an official W3C browser test

Well, programmers are lazy. (the good ones anyway)

If there is no conformance test, programmers have to
write good code and test it themselves.

If you write a test (an official one that is) programmers
may write code until they pass the test. And I don't think
you can design a test that ensures good conformance for
passed browsers.

I think the best solution is to let W3C approve
test suites. There are already some on the net.
So programmers can test their product on different
test sites, and when something is wrong, they know
that it is their code, not some wrong CSS code
on the site.

Sjoerd Visscher - sjoerd@locosoft.nl
Locosoft bv     - www.locosoft.nl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Håkon Wium Lie
> Sent: zaterdag 9 januari 1999 15:59
> To: Sjoerd Visscher
> Cc: www-html
> Subject: an official W3C browser test
>
>
> Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
>
>  > BUT when the w3c issues an official browser test,
>  > programmers will test their beta-browser on it,
>  > and tweaking the code until it passes the test.
>  > Programmers may incorrectly think that passing
>  > the test means a 100% working browser.
>  >
>  > This means that issuing an official browser test
>  > may even ENCOURAGE BUGGY CODE.
>
> True, passing a test suite doesn't guarantee conformance.
>
> But, working daily with browser vendors who use the CSS1 test suite, I
> don't quite understand how a test suite -- being reasonbly complete
> and well-designed -- would encourage more bugs. My experience point in
> exactly the opposite direction.
>
> -h&kon
>
> H   å   k   o   n      W   i   u   m       L   i   e
> howcome@w3.org      http://www.w3.org/people/howcome
> World     W      i     d     e       Web  Consortium
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 9 January 1999 12:57:24 UTC