Re: [tap] RFC Status?

[Jonathan Kingston <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

The most conversation was there about the JSON / TAP/Y work:
https://github.com/TestAnything/testanything.github.io/pull/6

I have seen a lot of conversation on other lists but I will have to dig out
where they were, I think there was talk on http://karma-runner.github.io/
The issue as I see it is the ability for robust meta data with and agreed
set of parameters and meanings. TAP/Y(
https://github.com/rubyworks/tapout/wiki/TAP-Y-J-Specification) has gone
some way towards addressing these however not far enough in clearing up the
format.

There is smaller amounts of things that need merging in but most are
conversations, the issue realistically is that I'm not the authority so it
need people to vote and comment on them. So on the issue above I can add my
comments and merge it in but realistically it is so much of a change that I
don't think it is fair for me to just merge it in.

I am happy to be a gate keeper of the changes of the site as realistically
its not going to change at a rapid pace, however I am looking to the
community to contribute to the issues and out of that perhaps I can get
more moderators on side.

I have created a new repo(https://github.com/TestAnything/Specification)
for TAP which can be used to track changes better, conversations and also
building TAP 14 separate to the site itself which I see as a published
authority.

Thanks


On 12 August 2014 21:13, Andrew de Andrade <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Kingston <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>> @Bruno I worked on the layout and the rest is on Github where
>> conversations can be continued for proposals as I didn't really like the
>> site being a wiki style. To gain any form of authority TAP needs to portray
>> itself much like any other body where conversations can be held elsewhere.
>>
>> My plan was to make a repo just for test proposals if you like in the
>> style of w3c proposals under the TestAnything org:
>> https://github.com/TestAnything
>>
>
> Agree. Moving everything under the TestAnything github org sounds like a
> solid approach.
>
>
>>
>> There is some bits that have been raised on Github which needs some
>> discussions as realistically people are developing alternatives to TAP
>> because of its shortcomings. However the JSON formats that have been
>> developed so far seem to have issues themselves despite being an attractive
>> concept.
>>
>
> Do you have any links to these alternatives and to discussions regarding
> what shortcomings in TAP that people are becoming frustrated with?
>
>
>> I am very much interested in it being an RFC however like the site
>> maintenance I am lacking a little in time.
>>
>
> Since the site is a github.io page, maintenance can be handled by any of
> us via a pull request. Are there any outstanding tasks that need to be
> addressed on the site?
>
>