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

Re: [RC6] rgb(50%, ..., ...) or rgb(..., 50%, ...) or rgb(..., ..., 50%): fractional value!

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:44:54 -0800
To: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
CC: Arron Eicholz <arron.eicholz@microsoft.com>, Public CSS test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCECAF3E.24972%rhauck@adobe.com>


On 12/7/12 2:29 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:

>
>Le Ven 7 décembre 2012 15:55, Rebecca Hauck a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>If we were face-to-face or on the phone, it would be interesting to
>>>discuss this. I don't necessarly disagree with you on everything.
>>>
>>
>
>I should have been saying "I don't necessarly disagree with what you
>said in the above paragraph." rather.
>
>Arron said something in a paragraph which I thought could lead to a
>rhetorical discussion or theoretical/academical discussion.
>And we have lots of tests to update and review.
>
>
>> Hi Gérard,
>>
>> We are planning on having another call to discuss the CSS21 test suite
>> after the CSSWG call next Wednesday, December 12. Would you like to join
>> us to discuss this? As I mentioned, this affects a large number of tests
>> we want to clean up for the release, so it's very worthwhile to get a
>> resolution soon.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rebecca
>
>Rebecca,
>
>As far as I am concerned, we can do 3 (I'm happy with such option) for
>cases with rgb(1%) and rgb(99%) as I said in
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2012Dec/0012.html
>
>which is:
>
>"
>3. Update the background-color cases to have 2 references one ref that
>is on either side of the value being defined.
>"
>
>I think we only need to tune the following 8 tests (so that they have 2
>references on either side) by doing 3.:
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-049.htm
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-054.htm
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-070.htm
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-075.htm
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-090.htm
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-095.htm
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-110.htm
>
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-colo
>r-115.htm

Ok, great!  We'll go with #3 for this set of tests. May I change the
status of the others back to Approved or do you prefer to do it? It
appears I have permission to that.


>
>What I miss from the beginning is the pivoting transitivity between
>*-color tests which was, it seems, an intentional, deliberate testing
>design decision.
>
>Phone calls are usually not favorable to me. First, there is lag. There
>can be echo in the background. I may miss a few words which then makes
>understanding sentences difficult. Or some words are unknown to me: eg.
>"divvy up", "piece meal". All this slows the discussion, the group and
>me. So, I prefer not to slow down conference phone calls.
>
>Gérard
>-- 
>Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/
>
>CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html
>
>CSS 2.1 test suite harness:
>http://test.csswg.org/harness/
>
>Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contr
>ibutions-css21-testsuite.html
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 17:44:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 December 2012 17:44:55 GMT