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

Re: Requirements for (level >=3) tests

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:30:57 -0500
Message-ID: <44cf761f6c9766a89fb01e290d8a713b.squirrel@ed-sh-cp3.entirelydigital.com>
To: "Aryeh Gregor" <ayg@aryeh.name>
Cc: "CSS-testsuite" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

Le Jeu 16 février 2012 13:10, Aryeh Gregor a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
> wrote:
>> I have assumed that the guidelines at
>> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/contribute etc also apply to
>> non-CSS2.1
>> tests, even though the URLs, breadcrumbs and content tend to mention
>> 2.1
>> specifically. Whether this is true or not, I am wondering which parts
>> are
>> absolutely *required* for submitted tests. Maybe that could be stated
>> more
>> clearly.
>> For instance, is the XHTML format mandatory for other testsuites? (It
>> seems
>> not all of them use it.) Are #help <link>s always necessary for
>> building?
>> Of course, if I write a new testsuite I will try to keep all of these
>> guidelines in mind. However, for existing and more ad-hoc tests, and
>> tests
>> written by others, the higher the bar the harder it will be to find
>> the
>> required time to do all the work for converting and submitting.
> To date, I've been ignoring the CSS 2.1 guidelines.  Just as a
> motivating example, I currently have a ref file at
> contributors/aryehgregor/incoming/ref-3d/green-rect.html, which
> consists of
> <!doctype html>
> <div style="width: 100px; height: 100px; background: lime"></div>
> If I read the guidelines correctly, this should really be
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
>  <head>
>   <title>CSS Reftest Reference</title>
>   <link rel="author" title="Aryeh Gregor" href="mailto:ayg@aryeh.name"/>
>   <style type="text/css"><![CDATA[
>    div { width: 100px; height: 100px; background: lime }
>   ]]></style>
>  </head>
>  <body>
>   <div></div>
>  </body>
> </html>
> I think I'm not being unreasonable when I suggest this requirement is
> onerous, given that the two files render identically in all browsers
> and contain essentially the same information.  Requiring XHTML 1.0
> Strict may have made sense in the early days of the CSS 2.1 test
> suite, but it doesn't make sense now.
> I really hope no one brings up the issue that HTML5 is still in WD.  I
> believe my HTML file here will work interoperably in all browsers
> since probably 1998 at least, even though it happens not to have been
> endorsed by any kind of specification until maybe 2005 or 2006.  XHTML
> 1.0 was officially standardized in 2000, but has always been and will
> always be ignored by browsers for the vast majority of content on the
> web, viz., files served as text/html.  Suggesting that XHTML 1.0 is
> preferable because of its official standardization status rather than
> paying attention to what browsers actually implement would indicate a
> severely problematic attitude toward testing and interoperability.
> We're here to get browsers interoperable, not adhere to process for
> its own sake, right?


I disagree with you.

XHTML tests are not served as text/html in the test suite. XHTML insures

What's so difficult in using a HTML document template anyway? Most text
editors can be customized to start with a HTML document template.

I also disagree that you mention what you do only today.

The whole thing sends a wrong message to web authors out there that web
standards are not important to follow, web standards bring no benefits,
are useless anyway, pointless, etc.. Web authors could now look at the
tests and say: "Look, even W3C in the test suites does not follow the
web standards it creates."

Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:

CSS 2.1 test suite harness:

Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:31:31 UTC

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