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

RE: content-072.htm is invalid

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:49:18 +0000
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <07349ECFC3608F48BC3B10459913E70B0C582F99@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Monday, October 25, 2010 2:32 PM Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/content-072.htm
> >
> > HTML5 allows the defer attribute to be defined as 'defer="defer"'. If
> > it is defined that way, and it is in the case
> 
> Am I looking at the wrong test?
> 
> $ curl http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/content-072.htm
> 2> /dev/null | grep '<script'
>         <script defer type="text/javascript"></script> $
> 
> This looks to me like a "defer" attribute with no value specified. Am I missing
> something?

I am looking at the source file. I think that is why we are talking about this differently. It looks like this is a build error. I will raise that issue.

Here is a link to the source file:
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_12/content-072.xht

> 
> > > > Unfortunately we only really have the HTML 4.01 spec to rely on.
> > > > It's the only current HTML Recommendation available for CSS.
> > >
> > > This is false. This HTML specification now is more mature than HTML
> > > 4.x has ever been and can be reliably used as a reference:
> > >
> > >    http://whatwg.org/html
> >
> > Like I stated the HTML 5 spec is not a Recommendation. The link points
> > to is a Draft.
> 
> The above specification is more mature than the HTML4 specification.

You should raise this as an issue for the CSS 2.1 spec and we can discuss changing the reference.

> 
> > > If we all agree then why are we even bothering to have this
> > > discussion? We don't have to blindly follow process rules that make no
> > > sense.
> >
> > We don't blindly follow we evaluate and create policies based on
> > discussion an compromise. Those policies should be followed or we have
> > all sorts of problems.
> 
> Apparently, following the policies is also giving us all kinds of
> troubles, for example you want to refer to HTML4 even though it is a long
> obsolete and known-incorrect specification for which a suitable and more
> mature replacement exists. :-)
> 
> 
> > Again at this time that pointer has to be to a Recommendation or
> > Proposed Recommendation.
> 
> 14 of the 18 normative references in CSS 2.1 are neither Recommendations
> or Proposed Recommendations. Either you are wrong, or the policy is wrong,
> or the specification is already violating the policy. In either case, I
> see no problem referencing the specification cited above.

Interesting, I have never checked on all the other references status. It looks like we are violating our own rules. In this case I would recommend that you bring up the issue of the HTML reference in the CSS spec in a separate thread on www-style and we can address this in the next telecon and at TPAC.

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 21:49:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 October 2010 21:49:58 GMT