Re: [tlug] ACID Tests (was Re: Browser share in Japan?)

[Raymond Wan <rwan.kyoto@example.com>]

On 31/05/11 16:27, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Raymond Wan writes:
> Yeah, sure, but my point is that I don't think that kind of analogy is
> appropriate here.  I failed my first road test here.  I assure you
> that although I made mistakes the second time around, I didn't make
> the same ones.  But Firefox will lose points on the ACID test the same
> way every time.  That's why it matters whether the standard is a good
> one or not.


Hmmmmm, I see.  How about that last line of an eye test that 
no one is meant to be able to read?  :-)

Ok, never mind ... the analogies aren't working and I should 
stop now.  ;-)


> For example, the first comment said "I made an SVG font in Inkscape,
> and it didn't work!  ... By the way, it didn't work in<some other
> browser>, too."  (Well, d'oh.)  That suggests that the ACID test sucks
> for sure, since it doesn't test features that people actually use, and
> maybe that the standard sucks too, since nobody (well, 0 of 2 browsers
> tested ;-) implements the standard.


Yes -- maybe the browsers aren't implementing it and don't 
have an intention to.  But perhaps some day, one of them 
will?  i.e., years and many versions later.  At least there 
would be a test available to evaluate it.

...kind of like the Turing test.  No no no...I said I would 
stop it with the analogies.  Opps...  :-)

But implementing it haphazardly just to pass the test at the 
risk of complicating the code is not a good idea.  Better to 
accept that 97% is the "maximum score"...


> So you see, the standard authors *do* have some common sense.  It's
> just that *in hindsight*, sometimes we realize that their common sense
> told them that something should be standard when it's a broken idea.


Maybe what went into 97% of ACID 3 should have been all of 
the test and the remaining 3% an "update" of the test -- 
ACID 3.1 after they thought about what they were doing.  :-)

Ray