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? > >Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 05:32:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC