- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:14:30 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
>If Arron wishes he can escalate the issue to the Working Group. >Otherwise this >discussion ends here and the test must be revised as indicated before >being >accepted into the W3C test suite. Yes, we do have a standstill on the mailing list. So I would propose we put this issue on the next telcon agenda and cast a vote then. Given that this issue has, afaik, not been the subject of a live discussion, I believe we would all benefit from having one rather than claiming one outcome or the other by default. David, Anne, are you both available for next Wednesday's telcon ? Fwiw, I think the discussion may have combined two issues: 1. Whether, as a Chapter 5 test, this testcase needs invalid markup to verify invalid attribute name selection. David and Anne believe that is not the case i.e. the test may rely on CSS error handling (Chapter 4). In other words, error handling is exercised by Chapter 4 testcases, and Chapter 5's - as well as other chapters' - may depend on it. 2. Then, how invalid attribute selector handling should be tested in the context of Chapter 4; given that testcases typically rely on selection to turn an element green or red, a direct approach will also conflict with a global well-formedness requirement in this chapter. And Arron is understandably uncomfortable depending on error handling to test error handling. Unless my understanding is off the mark, I think we should be able to reach agreement on #1 provided there is a well-formed way to address #2. All suggestions and proposals welcome. S
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2009 18:15:18 UTC