Re: [csswg-drafts] Exposing Implementation Status

Sorry for the delay in my response to this.

I didn't have the chance to make the meeting in Tokyo, but I'll just put out my desire for this - I actually stated it to @astearns a while back in Seattle. Many UAs are testing the W3C WPT test suites in house and as a WG we resolved to move our CSS tests to that repo. That is now complete thanks to @gsnedders work.

I desire, for the CSSWG test suite, to be **_the_** trusted source on support. This will leave no room for ambiguity or personal opinion (we have instances of this from various testing for score sites) since we currently have a consensus driven model. That said, that means that the source is only as good as our test suite. So we need to hunker down and shore up the test suites. I think we could start white-listing suites that we consider stable as we review them and keep them up to date. Then CanIuse, MDN, etc can do whatever color coding - what have you based on the pass/fail rates of a test suite. Additionally, since we're moving to test driven spec work, UAs will know what they have/haven't implemented from a given spec easier since they'll only need to look to the failing test cases (and obviously help with regression testing).

This is my personal desire, and I think one that will serve all UAs, but it does require us to get our house in order.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by gregwhitworth
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1468#issuecomment-313180251 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2017 18:01:42 UTC