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

Re: UAs passing tests if they don't implement a feature

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:43:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4FE4220B.1050008@inkedblade.net>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>, CSS-testsuite <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 06/21/2012 11:26 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Thursday 2012-06-21 23:12 -0700, fantasai wrote:
>> I will point out that this recommendation has been in the format
>> documentation for many years at this point, so your aforementioned
>> complaint about changing rules does not apply.
>
> Can we remove it?  There are many tests that are substantially
> easier to write with style attributes.

Are they easier to review, update, and create and compare derivations
also? (As I said, these are not write-only tests.) It's easier to write
tests without indentation, too. But harder to read them later.

I have seen some tests by bzbarsky that used the style attribute,
and were easy to read and understand. But they had 1-2 declarations
on each element, and only a few elements with styles.

In my experience, I've found it easier to work on tests with the
style declarations in <style>, where they can be written out with
indentation and comments, and can be easily refactored.

> Why was it added?

I don't recall the original motivations; it was a guideline hixie
followed in all his tests.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060203031756/http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/guidelines.html#format

On a related topic, I'll note the guidelines state that only
simple class and ID selectors should be used, unless the test
is testing selectors. Nobody seems to be complaining about
this, but maybe it's because nobody noticed. :)

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 07:43:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 07:43:54 GMT