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

Re: Requirements for (level >=3) tests

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:37:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKA+Axm7xsKBSs2j_sHGT_XRO-dDAP1yrqJQLyAnEKiZfms5Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, css21testsuite@gtalbot.org
Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, CSS-testsuite <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> I think we should also allow HTML5 (in the XML serialisation, so existing toolchain can consume it).

Does it need to be actual XHTML5, or is it sufficient for it to be
HTML5 that's well-formed XML?  What language is the toolchain written
in, and could the XML parser be swapped out for an HTML5 parser?

> If these are omitted them my understanding is that testing by chapter and reporting by chapter won't work.
>
> Similarly, without the assert of what is being tested, it is hard to check the tests, and its hard to auto-annotate the spec to link to the relevant tests.

These are relevant to CSS2.1, but CSS3 specs tend to be very small by
comparison.  They don't even have chapters, and I don't think
annotations are as critical.  I'm pretty sure I could easily
understand any reasonable transform reftest without annotations at
this point.  I was able to easily figure out almost all the Gecko
transform reftests despite the lack of documentation for any of them.

Not that I object to annotations, but I don't think they have to be a
hard requirement.  For instance, a test that particular transforms are
equivalent to particular matrices should be self-explanatory to anyone
who's familiar with the spec at all.

2012/2/16 "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>:
> 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?

They can look in the revision history.  There's no need to duplicate
that information in metadata.  Also, the test is the responsibility of
the Working Group, not the original author -- issues with tests should
be filed as bugs or sent to www-style, not privately sent to the
author.

> It is invalid HTML5. It's not just missing a <title>. It is invalid
> HTML5 because it is missing the <title>. . . .
> According to W3C quality assurance tips for web authors, <title> is the
> most important element of a quality Web page
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/good-titles
> and now we should just remove it from testpages and reftests of W3C test
> suites?

If it's useless, yes.

> 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.

If people used HTML5 instead of XML, you wouldn't need <![CDATA[ at all.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 21:37:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 21:38:05 GMT