On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Robin Berjon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 9, 2009, at 14:31 , Cyril Concolato wrote: >> Actually, I have a problem with the way the test suite result are expressed. >> Since there is no normative algorithm for the selection of the actual >> displayed icon, why should the test suite results but so strict. In >> particular, why does an implementation need to list all icons, if its policy >> is to select the first one, correct according to the spec, and that matches >> its needs. For example, one could say: > > Agreed, I think we should test for what the *first* icon is in the list (the > one that's selected). Listing all the others isn't useful, they're never used. >
I agree that the strict ordering is irrelevant because of the reason Cyril mentioned. And yeah, I agree that having multiple icon choices was probably stupid idea :(But can we give it a month to see if anyone does anything interesting with multiple icons in a list?). If everyone ignores multiple icons, then we will chuck it out. A quicker route might be to ask implementers what they want... I know that Robin wants them gone, at least. Cyril and Scott, is this feature any use to you? I'll ask the Bondi guys (I've CC'd David). -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
