W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Getting browser vendors running and submitting tests

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:53:27 -0400
To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>, public-test-infra@w3.org, Public CSS Test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d6ce0faa4ee2a571306f2ab149782455@gtalbot.org>
Le 2015-10-28 22:48, James Graham a écrit :
> On 29/10/15 11:37, fantasai wrote:
> 
>> I disagree with this. I think we should reduce the metadata,
>> but there are some things (e.g. spec section associations)
>> that we need to keep.
> 
> FWIW the counterpoint to this is that people have and will point-blank
> refuse to submit tests when there are requirements for metadata beyond
> what is strictly needed to make the tests run.

<link rel="author" href="...">: very easy to do


<meta name="flags" content="...">: is that really difficult to edit? I 
don't think so.



<title> text: the documentation should help by giving useful examples. 
James Hopkins had a good and easy system to use. He was just putting the 
most important css property and then another one which was being tested. 
You can not be wrong 99% of the time if you do this systematically.

<title>CSS [Module name] Test: property name - property name</title>

eg

<title>CSS Writing Modes Test: vertical-align - 'super' and vertical-rl 
writing-mode

<link rel="help" href="...">: it should be easy if you use the James 
Hopkins system. Just link to both properties you use in the <title>.


<meta name="assert" content="...">: that one is more difficult. But 
then, all reviewers need is some useful, meaningful, helpful comments at 
judicious spots and/or useful, meaningful, semantic id attribute, class 
attribute, function identifiers.

Examples:

(bad) class="class1"
(bad) class="class2"
(bad) class="one"
(bad) class="two"
(bad) class="a"
(bad) class="b"
(bad) id="div1"
(bad) id="div2"
(bad) id="span1"
(bad) id="span2"
(bad) id="one"
(bad) id="two"
(bad) id="a"
(bad) id="b"
(bad) function test()

Better, more recommendable:

(good) class="abs-pos-children"
(good) id="rel-pos-grand-parent"
(good) id="containing-block"
(good) id="blue-float-left"
(good) id="red-overlapped"
(good) id="green-overlapping"
(good) id="reference"
(good) id="control"
(good) id="clearing"
(good) id="following-sibling"
(good) class="adjacent-sibling"
(good) class="invalid"

Good identifiers are those which are
- descriptive with regards to the working/building logic of the test,
- descriptive of the design logic of the test or
- descriptive of the respective position in the containment hierarchy or
- descriptive of the respective position in the positioning hierarchy.


> I understand why this additional metadata is nice to have particularly
> when you come back to tests later, but requiring it will cause people
> to not upstream tests that they otherwise would have. I don't have a
> great solution for you, but consider if they are ways to make more of
> the metadata implicit in e.g. the directory structure, file naming,
> <title> element, etc.


The documentation could be more helpful.
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html
does not provide real examples.

I'm sure the documentation could be improved...

Gérard
-- 
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 05:53:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 05:54:00 UTC