web-platform-tests / web-platform-tests/rfcs
Use of tentative for "not ready for implementation" specs?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 110
- Forks
- 90
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Currently https://web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/file-names.html#test-features says:
.tentative : Indicates that a test makes assertions not yet required by any specification, or in contradiction to some specification. This is useful when implementation experience is needed to inform the specification. It should be apparent in context why the test is tentative and what needs to be resolved to make it non-tentative.
However, https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/36353#issuecomment-1273504927 raises the issue of parts of CSS Color Level 6 (which has a banner saying: "This spec is not yet ready for implementation. It exists in this repository to record the ideas and promote discussion.")
Should tests for such things be marked as tentative or not?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read the test file-naming guidance at web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/file-names.html#test-features and the linked discussion in wpt#36353, then compare them with the CSS Color Level 6 specification status. Done means documenting a clear decision about whether tests for specifications not ready for implementation should use the tentative label.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- css
- Domain
- documentation, testing
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100