RE: spec development process was: vendor prefixing

Also... picking an example somewhat at random...

	http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Color/current/html4/t040201-rgb-func-whitespace-b.htm

... an alternative location for prefixed verification could be something like ...

	http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Color/current/html4/t040201-rgb-func-whitespace-b.asp?color=-ms-color


The devil is in the details, but it seems to be a reasonably solvable problem for the CSS WG.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Manthos [mailto:brianman@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:17 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau; Bjoern Hoehrmann; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: RE: spec development process was: vendor prefixing
> 
> > > Why is it not until CR that "test suite" comes up?
> > > Shouldn't the test suite be underway during WD or ED stages?
> > >
> > > For example, why isn't every WD accompanied by a test suite that
> consists
> > > of (at least) every Example from the WD draft?
> >
> > Writing testcases earlier is better - having a test editor/owner aims
> to
> > enable that, in part - but since our public testsuites can't use
> prefixes
> > and pre-CR implementations must use prefixes the practical utility of
> going
> > through the exercise of publishing testcases that can't yet run
> anywhere is
> > somewhat limited.
> 
> Isn't the issue of "test cases unprefixed" vs. "tested implementations
> prefixed" already addressed as part of the implementation report
> process that happens in CR phase?
> 
> Why can't that same process be applied during WD?
> 
>