W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > October 2010

Re: content-072.htm is invalid

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:24:58 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikDPxbnFqMzDhAzwYMTAObJifd5CNnOnSjniVdS@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, GĂ©rard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Arron Eicholz
<Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately we only really have the HTML 4.01 spec to rely on. It's the only current HTML Recommendation available for CSS. If HTML5 were at the Recommendation stage the discussion would be different but it isn't, and we are a long way from that. I am not really trying to argue, in fact I personally agree with you about the state of HTML 4.01. CSS just needs to point to a certain level of specification as a normative reference and that happens to be the current HTML 4.01 spec. Until that changes I see no reason to remove a test from the test suite that is a valid HTML markup testing CSS features.

I don't see any value in process-lawyering here.  If we can't
normatively reference HTML5 due to W3C process, that means that W3C
process is broken there.  That's fine, whatever, we've run into these
kinds of issues before.  What we should *not* do is attempt to test
parts of our normative references that we know are incorrect, just
because they're normative.

It's much better for a behavior to be untested than it is to be
*incorrectly* tested.  Correct testing is, of course, infinitely
better than either.

Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 20:25:52 UTC

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