From 60b04c56cf00f2e254acba6bf70827f3e81defda Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sam Sneddon Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 18:41:54 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add a quick and dirty draft of what might be the de-facto scope of WPT --- rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md diff --git a/rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md b/rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1db267f --- /dev/null +++ b/rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +# Defining the Scope of web-platform-tests + +### Summary + +Define the scope of web-platform-tests to specifications which might reasonably be called "web specifications" +and which are intended to be implemented by web browsers. + +Additionally, define what "tentative" might reasonably be used for. + +This is intended to codify existing practice, +rather than represent any change. + + +### Details + +Historically, what's been in scope for web-platform-tests has been somewhat nebulous, +and largely based on a common understanding of participants, +especially those on the Core Team. +We should put this on surer footing, +and make it easier for others to understand what is and isn't reasonable to add. + +The primary aim of web-platform-tests is to test +[web specifications](https://github.com/w3c/browser-specs/blob/11a71b738f5e41f9239fdcd2074153388c8c6b8b/README.md#spec-selection-criteria) +[intended to be implemented by browsers](https://github.com/w3c/browser-specs/blob/11a71b738f5e41f9239fdcd2074153388c8c6b8b/README.md#categories), +both RFC 2119 "must" and RFC 2119 "should" +implementation requirements. + +A specification does not need to have cross-vendor support for its tests to be included in web-platform-tests. +(XXX: Should we set a bar of one-vendor support or are we okay with zero-vendor support?) + +Additionally, other features can be added as +[tentative](https://web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/file-names.html#:~:text=.tentative,-%3A%20) +tests: + + * Web browser behavior currently being explored via an + [explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/), + but without a specification yet written. + (XXX: require prototyping to have started?) + + * Historic but unspecified features in web browsers, + especially where major browsers are interoperable, + where there exists a long-term intention to specify them. + (Note: this excludes features which have been deliberately removed from specifications. + These are explicitly out of scope.) + +Features which are optional +(in RFC 2119 terms: + where the conformance criteria is + "may" or "may not") +may be included as +[optional tests](https://web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/file-names.html#:~:text=.optional,-%3A%20) +or +[optional subtests](https://web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/testharness-api.html#optional-features). + + +### Risks + +We over-constrain what is allowed in web-platform-tests, +potentially raising the bar to change what is allowed to "submit a new RFC", +leading browser vendors to reduce what they submit to the project. From 4e73ec1a5e12937b37ca6d2ed1d2025982dfa673 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sam Sneddon Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 18:42:59 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Update scope-of-wpt.md --- rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md b/rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md index 1db267f..155dbcf 100644 --- a/rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md +++ b/rfcs/scope-of-wpt.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Defining the Scope of web-platform-tests +# RFC 215: Defining the Scope of web-platform-tests ### Summary