- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:17:28 -0500
- To: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, James Graham <jgraham@mozilla.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, "Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com" <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Tess O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Hi All,
As part of the W3C's "ClearSpec project" [1], one of the goals is to
help the community understand the level of implementation of a
specification ("Document and inform about the level of adoption of
various documents").
Bikeshed displays information from WPT and MDN, for example:
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-4/ (WPT test results)
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-4/#at-supports-ext (MDN data)
Similarly, ReSpec displays information from MDN and Caniuse, for example:
https://w3c.github.io/manifest/ (caniuse)
https://w3c.github.io/manifest/#name-member (MDN data)
Various considerations and trade-offs ave been going into those tools.
I can imagine several questions around this information:
- are we using the right information and at the right level and for
the right audience?
- are we representing the information in the most optimal way?
- what about engine coverage, such as mobile results? (WTP tests
results don't cover mobile)
- Are we ok with this information appearing in documents published
at https://www.w3.org/TR ?
- Are we confident about the test coverage and if it meaningfully
represents feature support?
Note: we're using the Spec Editors Community Group to have those
discussions [2].
Feedback and comments are most welcome. If folks would like to get a
virtual call to discuss, I'm happy to organize one.
Philippe
[1] https://github.com/w3c/tr-pages/blob/main/clearspec2021.md#project-2
[2] https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/speced-cg
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2022 00:17:34 UTC