W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2006

RE: possible bug in t100801-c42-ibx-ht-00-d-a.xht

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:31:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0609251813320.13053@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Peter Sorotokin wrote:
> As I understand the purpose of the test suite, it is designed to help 
> users (who are not necessarily CSS experts) to quickly see the level of 
> compliance for any implementation and to help implementers to find bugs.

Oh, no, it's neither of these. The purpose of the test suite is to help 
the CSS working group gauge what level of interoperability we have so we 
know which parts of the spec to drop so we can move from CR to PR.

> Also, in this specific case, I think it would have been much better to 
> just define the height of the inline box in the spec.

I agree, but consensus couldn't be reached when this was last discussed, 
hence the way it is not defined.

> > I can look into the feasibility of marking tests that make assumptions 
> > of this nature, if you think that would help.
> That would certainly help - especially if it would mention the 
> assumptions in the prose of the test (like "your screen must be 96dpi" 
> or "your user agent must calculate content area height according to 
> non-normative language in section 10.6.1)". Suffix alone just would not 
> cut it - people would still just ignore it and submit bug reports.

Well, in both of those cases I think the bug reports would be likely 
welcome anyway since you basically have to implement things that way to be 
compatible with existing content. But I will look into what can be done. 
(As a general rule I don't think adding prose to a test helps since it 
would increase the time the test would take to check.)

> Do you want a list of files that make 96dpi screen assumption? For 
> those, actually, it would have been better to split each of them in two: 
> one that makes the assumption and the other one that does not.

If you have the list that would be great, yeah.

Making new tests would also be great, but I won't have the bandwidth to do 
this myself. If you have such tests, you can submit them using the system 
described here:


Use the "comments" column to mention that this is a resolution-independent 
variant of one of the other tests.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 18:31:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:16 UTC