- 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>
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