- From: Greg Whitworth via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:25:50 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@gsnedders That is definitely one way to look at it but what I'm proposing is to have a solid test suite - shallow test cases !== a solid test suite. You can be against providing an API to CanIuse or similar benchmarking site. Please don't tie the two of them together. I too am against gaming the system and that is why I want, and I think most of us are moving towards this, for WPT to be **THE** test suite. In order for that to be the case, none of us want to be running numerous pointless tests. We want interop and to be fixing bugs that provide value to our users. With regard to the benchmarks, those benchmarks still exist whether you want them to exist or not and are not backed by any valid testing or oversight by those that know relative impact nor the specs in most scenarios. So while yes, there is potential for a team to try to game the system, if the WPT == the suite we run during building, there will be pushback to allow frivolous tests in. I appreciate your concern however. Please understand that my number one desire is a solid suite. Second to that is to provide **accurate** and unbiased support results (this is not the case currently). -- GitHub Notification of comment by gregwhitworth Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1468#issuecomment-315146034 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 13 July 2017 17:25:57 UTC