- From: Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:37 +0100
- To: public-mwts <public-mwts@w3.org>
I looked at the device guidelines yesterday and today, and I made a raft of harsh edits on my personal copy here: http://dabase.com/guidelines.html The diffs are here: http://git.webconverger.org/?p=faq.git;a=history;f=guidelines.html There is quite a few bits I didn't like. For example: Since new standardised Web features could be implemented by plugins, I thought it was totally unnecessary to say tests should avoid using them. For example SVG implementations often rely on a plugin. Perhaps I am little biased as I do work for company who hopes to compete by implementing standardised device APIs (W3C widget spec) via a plugin. http://webvm.net Keyboard and pointing devices can be collapsed into one section. Prerequisites - I hate this word. :-) But really, why does one have explicitly state the multitude of features a test might require or rather depend (slightly better word) on. Perhaps in a meta tag http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/format#requirement-flags , but not as explicit text. I really didn't like the "Target devices" section. At first you say that it's impossible to account for all possible constraints, and then the next steps seems to be about assessing which technologies are widely deployed?? That doesn't make sense to me. A tester should not have to care about such decisions! Testers should be writing tests against standards to verify conformance. I didn't understand "Take care when triggering DOM operations that they will not require downloading DTDs". I don't think it's important for testers to include doctypes. Kind regards,
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 10:53:17 UTC