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

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

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:04:12 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>, CSS-testsuite <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120622170412.GA19427@crum.dbaron.org>
On Friday 2012-06-22 00:43 -0700, fantasai wrote:
> 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.

In most cases, yes, because there's less unnecessary indirection.

> >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

I think that's because Hixie was against the style attribute in
principle.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 17:04:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 17:04:49 GMT