On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:21:18 +0530, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:22:59 +0530, Chris Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2) In fact, on that note, we're interested to see the test suite be
linked, normatively if necessary.
Yes. I think this is a valuable piece of feedback. Currently W3C
process doesn't require test suites until you're trying to get out of
CR and I think it would be better to have them earlier.
I agree that official test suites should be developed earlier than CR.
Noted.
... Fortunately, we have unofficial test suites as a starting point.
Yep.
However, I think that per standard practice the test suite should not be
considered normative, only the text of the spec.
This is the case traditionally for W3C which was once very test-shy and
spec-friendly. I think that the moves towards accepting tests as normative
is not necessarily a bad idea...
In particular, conformance requirements that are not covered by a test
must still be binding,
I agree with this
and in case of conflict between the test suite and the spec, the spec
must win.
I'm not so sure about this. Interpreting test results is often easier to
do unambiguously than interpreting spec language. Ultimately whether we
endorse the spec or a test, we have to carefully look at them both and do
our best to ensure they really do match...
Of course, if the test suite and the spec ever disagree we will have to
publish bug fixes to the test suite or errata to the spec, but in the
meantime we need to be clear which is normative.
agreed.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
