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

Re: Proposed replacements for background-root-020.htm and tables-001.htm

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:16:34 -0700
Message-ID: <35bafeef126509e20c85b6c575d38513.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "Řyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com>

> On 09/11/2010 07:31 AM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
>> Hello,
>>> ==== Ian Hickson ====
>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/background-root-020.htm
>>> There are no "links below". Also, the last two sentences should be
>>> rewritten to not require an understanding of the specification
>> Proposed replacement:
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-root-020.htm
> Test updated. I didn't add the interact flag, but instead clarified
> the instructions a little more. The test doesn't require interaction,
> the pass/fail conditions are just easier to determine that way.

Those testcases are unretrievable (syntax errors, building errors)



>> --------------------
>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/tables-001.htm
>>> This test could use a description/an explicit pass condition
>> Proposed replacement:
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/tables-001.htm
> I've copied your pass condition, but left most of the code alone.
> I don't want to alter hixie's tests unless they're wrong -- it's
> often hard to figure out what failure modes he had in mind, and
> I'd rather not remove any. I'm not sure what he had in mind for
> this one.

That testcase is not obvious or easy to figure out.

I thought all of Ian Hickson's testcases were abandoned.

> Also when updating tests, if you could avoid changing anything
> that doesn't *need* changing (things like indentation and the like),
> that would make it much easier for me to figure out what's changed
> so I can review the changes.

Ok. I will do this.

> BTW, an explanation of how the particular test works should be
> placed in a comment, not in the test assertion. The test assertion
> should be a general statement that the test is trying to prove.

Ok. This is now very clear.
I have "overloaded" the <meta> asserts of a few testcases with
explanations in the past.

regards, Gérard
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 test suite (beta 3; August 15th 2010):

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 01:17:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:20 UTC