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

Re: RC1 : 1st preliminary review report: list of 69 incorrect testcases

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:36:23 -0700
Message-ID: <56b9ecc0e095c3dfeff9f4c0a753ec0a.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:03:16 +0200, GĂ©rard Talbot
> <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>> "
>> (...) Documents that do not specify default scripting language
>> information and that contain elements that specify an intrinsic event
>> script are incorrect. (...)
>> "
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-
>> If default script language is not provided, then how is an user agent
>> going to be sure/to know in advance that this inline script is
>> "text/javascript" media type and that other one over somewhere else is
>> "text/vbscript" media type? That is why, I believe, default scripting
>> language should be specified in case of inline script.
> I do not think that holding up the CSS 2.1 test suite against HTML4 for
> scrutiny is a good use of our time.


I do not scrutinize the colossal mass of testcases looking for mere
HTML4 issues (unless they have or may have or can have an undeniable
effect on the pass/fail condition of the testcases). I examine the
testcases looking for serious problems and for HTML/CSS/DOM problems or
issues which can have an impact on the pass/fail condition of the

> HTML4 is not what is being
> implemented
> by the implementors we want to pass the CSS 2.1 test suite.

My original point 14- [1] was about duplicated id in those testcases -
many testcases - and that those testcases were relying on a script
function being able to iterate through the collection of same, identical
id-ed elements ... which is not an assured thing to happen.

The other points were presented as "other smaller problems" which could
be fixed at the same time. My perspective is: if you are going to update
a testcase (furthermore a batch of testcases; there are 208 testcases on
table-anonymous-objects !), why not fix at the same time all of the
[admittedly] smaller issues which are fixable and which were defined in
the wiki wrt test format [2] and in CSS2.1 Test Case Authoring
Guidelines (section 3.4) [3]? With an advanced text editor, it is very
easy to make changes/updates to a batch of testcases.

[2] http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/format
[3] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/guidelines.html#content-style-type

regards, Gérard
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 test suite (RC1; September 17th 2010):

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 20:37:30 UTC

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