Hi, folks-
On 1/11/12 9:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 1/10/12 11:25 AM, ext Glen Shires wrote:
Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what you would like
to see at this point?
At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like "if/when the spec advances to
Candidate Recommendation, we will contribute to a test suite that is
sufficient to exit the CR" would be useful.
I agree with this general sentiment, but I'd like to offer a different
priority to tests.
Technically, the W3C Process does not require a test suite, but
pragmatically, it's the best way to indicate conformance and
implementability, and to promote interoperability.
Modern expectations (e.g. in the last 4-6 years) about the specification
process include early prototyping and implementation feedback well
before CR phase, with real-world webapps depending upon these early
implementations, so we need interoperability fairly early on.
The infrastructure and methodology for creating and maintaining tests
(at W3C and in implementation projects) has improved dramatically in the
last few years as well, so it's easier to do.
As such, the creation of tests should not be left to CR... there should
be a plan in place (e.g. a person, and a loose policy, like "as we
implement, we'll make tests and contribute them to the WG"), and a
person responsible for collecting and maintaining the tests (i.e. making
sure that the tests are adapted to meet the changing spec).
Regards-
-Doug
