- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 04:18:40 +0000
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Brian Manthos:] > > Bjoern Hoehrmann: > > What is the point, really, in having multiple implementations, then go > > to Candidate Recommendation, everybody drops the prefixes, and then > > see if anyone bothers writing a test suite? At that point it's too > > late for the test suite to uncover problems that could then be fixed > > as part of the standardization process. If problems are found, they > > most likely come from the real world, with authors actually running > > into problems, and then you'd address them in an errata mode with > > reluctance to make major changes because such changes would likely > > break things, just as would be the case if the Working Group had > > published a Recommendation instead. > > In catching up on this thread, "test suite" life cycle stood out as an > issue. > > Why is it not until CR that "test suite" comes up? > > Shouldn't the test suite be underway during WD or ED stages? > > For example, why isn't every WD accompanied by a test suite that consists > of (at least) every Example from the WD draft? Writing testcases earlier is better - having a test editor/owner aims to enable that, in part - but since our public testsuites can't use prefixes and pre-CR implementations must use prefixes the practical utility of going through the exercise of publishing testcases that can't yet run anywhere is somewhat limited. That so many spec examples need to be copied/pasted regardless of the document status does drive me nuts at times. +1 on putting those in the test suite and linking them from the spec by REC.
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 04:34:44 UTC