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 using your GitHub account

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