- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:09:31 +0100
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Peter Linss <peter@linss.com>
On 25/09/17 11:08, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > - Unversioned directories, probably under css/ to make the lint rules > simpler and easier to understand for contributors. > - Keep requiring <link rel=help> for CSS WG stuff. > - Require versioned spec links. > - Don't require links to specific spec sections, but encourage them (but > don't block on it indefinitely!). FTR it seems like this consensus is just the result of everyone giving a little without changing their fundamental position, and doesn't represent a solution that fulfills anyone's goals. It doesn't make authoring tests much easier because you still need to learn about special rules under css/ and take the time to comply with them. In particular t still means that a single-vendor reftest is always easier to write than a cross-browser one even when the actual test is identical. And it doesn't really fulfill the CSSWG goals of documentation or outsourcing the burden of creating an IR to test authors because manual work will be required to deal with "unknown" tests to ensure that they are in the same level at transition time as they were when written. I'm happy to go ahead with this since there is agreement, but I suspect it will turn out to be an unsatisfactory arrangement.
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 15:10:00 UTC