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 14:04:46 -0500
Message-ID: <75afd34584ba5f650186178594a41820.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 13:38, Aryeh Gregor a écrit :
> 2012/2/16 "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>:
>> I disagree with you.
> Okay.
>> XHTML tests are not served as text/html in the test suite.
> Correct.  This just means that you're using a different code path from
> virtually every web page, which is undesirable in a test suite.  Tests
> should be text/html because web pages are all text/html, for practical
> purposes.

The XHTML format insures that they can be later built into well-formed
HTML4. There are reasons why tests should be created in XHTML served as
application/xhtml+xml to begin with.

Personnally, I never used and never use XHTML served as
application/xhtml+xml .

>> XHTML insures well-formedness.
> This begs the question.  Why do we want well-formedness?  HTML parsing
> has been well-defined for several years now.

"Tag soup" is definitely not what I propose, recommend.

>> What's so difficult in using a HTML document template anyway? Most
>> text
>> editors can be customized to start with a HTML document template.
> It's harder to read.  As in, several times as long, with most of the
> markup being boilerplate that serves no purpose.  It's processed
> exactly the same by all browsers, and the relevant standards guarantee
> that.  The HTML5 version of the same file is two lines long and
> contains nothing except the actual style information relevant to the
> test, except the doctype.

So the author name in that reftest is not important, useful? Who are web
authors supposed to contact if there is a problem with a reftest then?

>> 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."
> HTML5 is a W3C-hosted specification, and the test file I gave is valid
> HTML5 (except that it's missing a <title>, okay).

It is invalid HTML5. It's not just missing a <title>. It is invalid
HTML5 because it is missing the <title>. And the W3C validator will
report warnings about undeclared character encoding too.
According to W3C quality assurance tips for web authors, <title> is the
most important element of a quality Web page
and now we should just remove it from testpages and reftests of W3C test

> XHTML 1.0 is a
> specification that's more than a decade old, is exceptionally vague in
> specifying everything except syntax, and isn't actually used on a
> nontrivial number of real-world websites (given that pages served as
> text/html are actually processed by browsers as HTML5 regardless of
> doctype).  Using it in preference to HTML5 sends the message that the
> W3C cares more about theoretical purity than about actual browser
> interoperability.  Which, unfortunately, seems to be true.

A few min. ago, I wrote about &gt; and child selector. Now, if everyone
had followed the CSS format guidelines, then we would never have
encountered such issue. So, in this case (using <style
type="text/css"><![CDATA[  ...  ]]></style> ), it was not and it is not
about theoretical purity.

Web standards exist so that problems, issues, difficulties, etc. can be
avoided and interoperability can prevail.

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 19:05:19 UTC

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