RE: pilot case?

> A common
> github layout that answers a few questions might be one thing that is
> handy.. I was proposing it might be worth taking something that has
> already been adopted by a WG and seeing how to come up with a standard
> test runner, etc such that by the time implementors or the WG get
> there, there is already something community provided (and possibly
> partially reviewed by a few implementors) that they can pick up and
> run with... Make the process easier.

I support that. Maybe linking to revelant blog posts is already a good start. My thoughts would be:

- http://testthewebforward.org/#resources (how to write w3 tests, submit them)
- https://t.co/S6GRaA3YyA (how to run a project & get it noticed)

We probably need an "how to write a good spec" tldr that's easy to read, but there are already existing guides:

- http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-test-methodology-20100128/ (Marcos co-edited that one)
- http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/


> In the 'larger picture' we might add advice like: if it is aimed
> toward w3c, 'use respec with unofficial draft and put it here' in the
> layout... I think that would be a great suggestion. Not sure what we
> do if it is aimed at ECMA?

ECMA uses wikis for their own proposals, even ECMA members have it difficult to create preliminary test cases as it seems so I don't think we can provide any guidance for them. However, people are much more likely to propose new W3 stuff than ECMA stuff.

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 17:44:21 UTC