<html><head><base href="x-msg://584/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Menlo; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">One idea I’m been thinking about is the possibility separating the organization of the tests from the naming of individual test files. For example, tests could be given individual unique identifiers (various schemes are possible) and then there could be separate organization “map” that follow the specification structure and maps to individual tests using their unique ids. Then we could have an organizational map for ES3, another for ES5, etc. all referencing into the same set of test. These organization map would be used for sequencing testing and reporting results.</div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This seems like a reasonable way to start. Note that it's likely that some identifiers will map only into ES3, some only into ES5, and some into both.</div><div><br></div><div>I could also imagine that the test suite development effort could feed back into future spec efforts: as the test harness develops useful "permanent identifiers" for various aspects of the spec, the spec could be annotated with those identifiers at the appropriate spots, making cross-reference more convenient.</div><div><br></div><div>(It would probably be better to do this in an unobtrusive ways, such as margin notes, rather than interrupting the flow of the spec, but making any concrete decisions about this could be left to editorial decisions further down the road.)</div><div><br></div><div>If I had to guess, the mere act of trying to develop a naming scheme while developing the test suite will tell us more about how to go about trying to organize such things than a priori guesswork. I'd like to see what the test suite developers come up with, and perhaps let them develop a naming scheme organically. At some point, we'll need to make some firm decisions, but it seems early enough that it wouldn't hurt to allow experimentation rather than risk premature (mis)organization.</div><div><br></div><div>Dave</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>