Re: [tap] RFC Status?

Jonathan Kingston <> Tue, 12 August 2014 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2281B1A0110 for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ai2ZdqI1ZuKD for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACA411A010C for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x69so6978141oia.20 for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XbeQP6SOogwInM0lySYsPuKuswSP9kH/xGe2XMe5uB4=; b=m+cl4lsJ1H9jybNIhsmEfY0oEF1X4jsHNUHZHi0kyclMc2cawBdcyHebI4tALwrItZ TArTWRcW4+0q4+WZ4YAlHtsV8vVIEm+cstqIJ4vEul1IAKgTAXWkZoJcxH4JQRllBYPP n4Dw8IcLmCCOIEd2qZtJW+kWkKde74CtBr18lxtO5gjp2+UEQB3QOmZ9nodWr9JEYmIa W0bXJly6bx7OHKcMPxD7N0s4wHsfmFey0Dt+zz45MjG6L6EeGKW2hxRPe9iNz1a17mqQ Q6jU8m4p1t1sY13eMsfyb1LTq+aMcyYTqZm6pd6QY5+Ro+z8kRJBT9EHo7kwTVFnKleH fO5Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id lw19mr358079oeb.22.1407876467164; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:47:47 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GtL-wd1yIvncZ9ykLaWRuLY1A3s
Message-ID: <>
From: Jonathan Kingston <>
To: Andrew de Andrade <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d2f88b68b67050074c879
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tap] RFC Status?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:47:54 -0000

Hi Andrew,

The most conversation was there about the JSON / TAP/Y work:

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
The issue as I see it is the ability for robust meta data with and agreed
set of parameters and meanings. TAP/Y( has gone
some way towards addressing these however not far enough in clearing up the

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(
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


On 12 August 2014 21:13, Andrew de Andrade <> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Kingston <
> > 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:
> 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 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?