* Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-24 03:50]: > It would be helpful if every entry had a distinct atom:id. And > if the tests were valid: > > http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplasmasturm.org%2Fattic%2Fatom-tests%2Fxmlbase.atom
Yeah, I should fix those. I’ve also been thinking about the suggestions to use `<img>` tags to make it easy to scan the results quickly. Likewise I’ve been thinking about Gordon Weakliem’s comment on the wiki: > I suggest that the tests be documented with respect to the > expected results. For example, TitleConformanceTests is > perfect: viewing the feed tells you what the expected result > is. LinkConformanceTests, OTOH, gives me no idea of what the > author expected to see when viewing the entry in a reader. For > example, what does the author expect to see when viewing the > second entry? If I display only the second link, do I pass? Do > I need to display both links to pass? I’d like to do more, but writing tests is menial work, and I don’t have a lot of tuits at the time being. That’s why I asked about being able to host these at the wiki, so that the touch-up process would be low-friction. If you lack tuits to take care of that, I could copy everything to my site, for the time being, for easier editing. I make no promises as to when any of that will be, though. :-/ Honestly, I’m a little disappointed that not more tests have been written so far, and that is has been happening in such haphazard fashion. Is it really because noone cares? (I suppose I don’t care that much either, judging by my output.) What would it take to get more people more involved? Would it help if there was a list of outstanding testable spec aspects? What aspects need to be tested (this needs more feedback from consumer developers!)? Hmm, #atom would be an ideal place to get this done within a short timeframe, provided a mob got together. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
