On 22/01/2013 14:48 , Tobie Langel wrote:
Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which
has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly at
the technology level.
My understanding is that we don't have to care about spec-IP issues in
test suites because when you contribute to a test suite you're not
contributing to the spec's essential claims.
You *do* need to make the proper commitments for the test suite, but
those are much lighter and can easily be extended to all.
Whether we end up as:
w3c-tests/
deviceorienation/
html5/
pointerevents/
progressevent/
xmlhttprequest/
or:
deviceorienation-tests/
html5-tests/
pointerevents-tests/
progressevent-tests/
xmlhttprequest-tests/
Doesn't really matter (though I do find the former more readable). What
bothers me however is how had to parse per-WG-organization is for
newcomers.
That's why we're proposing to ditch per-WG anything here. The way
html-testsuite is set up, we already have subdirectories for html,
canvas2d, and microdata. Those are all from the HTML WG, but they're
just listed as the individual specs. We can keep on adding more specs in
there (the Web Crypto people are looking to do that).
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
