- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 16:11:17 -0700
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@w3.org>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, spec-prod@w3.org
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@w3.org> wrote: > > > >> On 12 Mar 2022, at 5:09 am, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: >> >> Many/most RDF test suites use the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) format [1] for reporting implementation conformance, which gets rolled up into a report such as that used for Turtle [2]. Not suprising that we like our test reporting to be queryable, and can use that to generate a useful HTML representation. It would be great if that presentation could look like caniuse. > > This is roughly where we ended up with caniuse: > https://github.com/w3c/respec/pull/4080 > > Still needs quite a bit of work, particularly on mobile and some a11y aspects (any volunteers out there want to help?). > > However, it could serve as a basis to build on. Notable questions: > > * do things need to be grouped? The only grouping I think would make sense would be for implementors of query systems such as SPARQL, and there are several levels of conformance, so some grouping could make sense in that regard. For other specs, the implementations are all over the board, and not necessarily the same for each different specification. > * are there software icons that need to be shown? If yes, where are those hosted and kept up to date? Not that I’m aware of. > As mentioned in the previous email, it might be good to spin up a new issue at: > https://github.com/speced/speced-cg/issues/ For my part, I’m content to leave well-enough alone. However, if ReSpec, or W3C Publications, starts requiring the use of can-i-use, or similar, across the board, that would leave out this large group fo specs that are not browser based. Gregg > To discuss further. > > Kind regards, > Marcos > > >
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2022 23:17:03 UTC