Resolution can be measured, but Lo CA is not measurable, neither is Bokeh
Actually, this raises an interesting point. Most of these features of lenses can be described in a completely mathematical way, and thus can be rated on a scale. Perhaps these is simply an unmet demand for more types of metrics for lens reviews. Personally, knowing a lens's CA characteristics (of the different types) is very useful to me.
I think it can be measured - lateral CA anyway. lateral CA can be measured in terms of percentage of a frame width of fringing, though people usually talk about how many pixels out from a like of marked contrast that fringes exist. It can be fixed in a standard, programmatic way (not longitudinal CAs so much though). For axial (longitudinal) chromatic aberrations I figure that the measure would be how far out of sync the two color channels are, comparing the sharpness of images at different wavelengths. It would certainly be harder than the traditional MTF test but seems possible regardless. Boke
would be even trickier since there is more of a subjective quality, and trying to test for adherence to a certain desired kind of defocus quality might be a point of contention, with some people liking their boke looking different.
Still, review sites like photozone.de, despite not standardizing a test to translate boke into a graph still feature it, and it is clear enough that there is a comparison to be made in this quality across different lenses, and more credit given to lenses with better defocus area quality.
Photozone does feature a graph of purple-green fringing lateral CAs, though sometimes I differ with their results. They claim that purple-green fringing is "not field relevant" on the TS-E 90mm, but on my first day of testing I discovered quite a bit of it, in various circumstances, that is visible even from the confines of a fit-to-screen monitor view (about 1920x1200). Either my (secondhand but essentially new) copy is somehow defective from the formula (it's not a mechanical issue) or their review methodology is flawed.