W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Format guidelines for tests (particularly HTML5)

From: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:49:00 -0700
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CACBAE5B-DFBC-4F78-9C2C-894F79177A41@hp.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Apr 18, 2012, at 2:29 PM, fantasai wrote:

> On 04/18/2012 12:34 PM, Peter Linss wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:38 AM, fantasai wrote:
>>> On 04/18/2012 08:05 AM, Linss, Peter wrote:
>>>> {snip}
>>>> It occurred to me that for markup parsing tests we need to be able to flag the test source in such a way that the build process will simply copy the source file as is. It can copy all the metadata (including any metadata it needs to inject) into a sidecar file (.meta). Any suggestions for the name of that flag?
>>> I'd make it a per-testsuite option. None of the CSS tests should ever
>>> need that flag. But some of the HTML ones would.
>>> ~fantasai
>> But test suites will soon be generated based on spec links. So if it's external to the test file then we need to specify the option on a per spec link basis.
>> Even then, some test may refer to parsing sections of other specs as secondary links and may not really have a 'don't re-serialize me' requirement.
>> Since we really only need it for tests that are deliberately non-well formed (or otherwise stress a markup parser), I'd like to have it a per-test option.
> Okay, but there shouldn't be any such tests in the CSS test suites.

Agreed, but our tools are getting picked up by more groups, so I'm trying to make the supporting code flexible to handle needs beyond ours.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:49:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:24 UTC