W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Comments on Microsoft Chapter 4 Tests

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:15:48 +0200
To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.usqsomrr64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:41:21 +0100, Arron Eicholz  
<Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote:
> That doesn't work for me. We should avoid using any of the special words  
> RECOMMENDED, MAY and OPTIONAL) in pass conditions. These all have  
> special meanings and should be used sparingly and only when it is really  
> appropriate. In fact I think I only use any of those terms maybe 10 or  
> so times throughout the entire test suite and only when it is left up to  
> the user agent to decide what to do. Also the example <p>This text  
> should be green</p> is flawed. It's not that is "should be" it must be  
> green to pass. How do you know if the test passes you have no check? You  
> need to state what needs to happen in order to pass the test. "Test  
> passes if" was our standard and clearly tells anybody when the test  
> passes.

I'm not sure why you think RFC 2119 terms have special meaning in test  
cases, I think they don't. I.e. "should be" is used in the English way and  
just means that in order to pass it needs to be green.

Anyway, I'm willing to conceed on this as it does not really matter much  
in the end I suppose. Though I'm not sure if I'd be willing to go as far  
as rejecting other tests that do use this terminology.

> Changing the tests just makes it slower to run the cases and potentially  
> causes problems.

We can probably automate a whole lot in ECMAScript using getComputedStyle  
or some such I suspect. (If we want to.)

By the way, I'm still waiting on an answer from you regarding this e-mail:


That is regarding test at-charset-039.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 15:16:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:18 UTC