Brendan Eich (2014-02-08T01:13:45.000Z)
David Bruant wrote:
> Le 07/02/2014 22:05, Brendan Eich a écrit :
>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> - A *working* implementation should be created and solutions to 
>>> real-world use cases should be programmed using the design before 
>>> any spec language is authored.  Spec-language is a poor medium for 
>>> communicating both design intent and programming intent.
>>
>> Yes, this.
> A working implementation is a lot of work, even a polyfill. But tests.
> Very recent case in point : 
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20701
> It was a lot of words in English, lots of HTML5 spec vocabulary with 
> very special and detailed meaning, I had lost track at some point, 
> even with the spec-y summary by Bobby [1]. But then, he created tests 
> and that was suddenly fairly easy to review [2]. It was fairly easy to 
> point places that might be under-spec'ed and needed more tests.

Yeah, a warning to auto-didactic prose-heavy spec authors.

> Tests are an excellent medium to discuss feature design. The current 
> test suite leaves room for interpretation on a corner case? throw in a 
> new test to disambiguate!

Tests++. Until they overspecify, then --. No silver bullets. More tests 
when in doubt.

/be
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-02-13T09:32:27.683Z)
David Bruant wrote:

> A working implementation is a lot of work, even a polyfill. But tests.
> Very recent case in point : 
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20701
> It was a lot of words in English, lots of HTML5 spec vocabulary with 
> very special and detailed meaning, I had lost track at some point, 
> even with the spec-y summary by Bobby [1]. But then, he created tests 
> and that was suddenly fairly easy to review [2]. It was fairly easy to 
> point places that might be under-spec'ed and needed more tests.

Yeah, a warning to auto-didactic prose-heavy spec authors.

> Tests are an excellent medium to discuss feature design. The current 
> test suite leaves room for interpretation on a corner case? throw in a 
> new test to disambiguate!

Tests++. Until they overspecify, then --. No silver bullets. More tests 
when in doubt.