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

Re: Suggestions and corrections to the MS-supplied CSS 2.1 tests

From: James Hopkins <james@idreamincode.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:28:52 +0000
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-Id: <17700A13-9454-4E38-82B9-5398B8C07EE1@idreamincode.co.uk>
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
On 18 Feb 2009, at 19:02, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> James Hopkins wrote:
>> Regarding their :first-letter tests, I am by no means an implementor
>> but I would have thought punctuation characters are implemented in
>> Unicode character sets, so am wondering whether there is any need for
>> creating an individual test case for each one of these characters
>> (there are currently around 411 test cases for this purpose in the MS
>> Conformance Suite). If however there is a need, I would suggest
>> aggregating all 411 into one test case where all punctuation
>> characters each precede and succeed the first letter - I believe this
>> would make it far quicker for implementors to see whether all
>> characters are indeed supported. Certainly from my own bug-testing
>> point of view, I think this and similar features could be tested on  
>> an
>> adhoc basis, similar to what the CSS2.1 Test Case Authoring  
>> Guidelines
>> (http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/guidelines.html#methodical) state.
>
> There is a need for individual tests, let me try and explain.

Just to put my own curiosity to rest, are Unicode characters  
implemented as sets, as opposed to individually? This was why I asked  
the question originally, since it seems a bit nonsensical to me to  
construct a test case for each Unicode character if they're  
implemented in sets.

> We created individual tests so that if the developer does have an  
> error in the code there is a simple repro case to look at and they  
> can take quick action for the targeted issue. If you have a large  
> page that contains all the characters and there is an error on it  
> you don't know what the actual error is until you reduce it down to  
> its simplest form. You can guess that it's a character selection  
> problem in this case but it may not be it may be a combination of  
> the characters above or below that cause the issue. While I do agree  
> that a single test containing all the characters would be a quick  
> check that the characters are working how can you prove that the  
> other characters on the page are not affecting your results? Rule of  
> thumb for most of our tests simple is better and faster for  
> resolving and fixing issues. Also I know that there are very few  
> things influencing the specific test I am running.
>
>> I agree with Johannes that there should be a clear pass or fail
>> condition. For example, there are many cases where the black text
>> color, combined with the text "Test passes if there is no red visible
>> on the page", constitutes a pass. Even though the text is self
>> explanatory, I suggest the black text become green, constituting a
>> pass- this further iterates, and emphasizes a clear pass condition.
>
> There may be particular cases that can fall into that category and  
> if you identify a few of them I may come up with a general solution  
> for all of our cases. But there is one inherent problem with doing  
> this for all cases. What about display: none? Those cases can't  
> alter the text just because they are not visible on the page.

I've based the example below of the current test case for 'Descendant  
elements and 'display:none'' (http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/css/chapter_9/rules/decendant-display-none-001.htm):-

div{
	width: 1in;
	height: 1in;
	background:green;
}

div div{
	display:none;
}

div div div{
	background:red;
	height:100%;
	width:100%;
}

> And making the pass condition text green in this scenario could be  
> confusing if the test failed. Not to mention that green text is  
> harder to read for some people.
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Arron Eicholz
>
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 02:29:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:51:57 GMT