W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Writing Modes PR & Testsuite

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:07:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHKdfMjV4=0PXozf-K0FDnQTiYeW_hESZkF=87+XKb-vi=pCMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, GĂ©rard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-01-13 11:03 GMT+09:00 Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>:
>>
>> In principle, the tests fail in all UAs
>
>
> I don't think this is true; Blink imports the tests once every a week or
> two, Blink has some anti-alias issue on Mac but not on other platforms.
>
> Each browsers handle fractional pixels and anti-alias differently, and
> you're right that we don't have as much experiences on building stable tests
> in vertical writing modes yet as we have in horizontal writing modes. I
> can't agree more for us to improve that, but as long as we have enough
> browsers passing in automated/manual ways, I do not see this as a spec
> issue.

When all browsers pass *modified versions of the tests* (because, by
definition, the reftests in wpt and csswg-test require pixel-for-pixel
identity), I don't think we should consider the testsuite good. After
all, if it were good, nobody would feel the need to modify it!

Given spec advancement is tied to the testsuite (insofar as it is used
to demonstrate interoperability), I think that this should be
considered an issue.

Yes, it may turn out there's no way to use reftests for as many of the
writing modes tests, but we should reach a point where the tests don't
need to be modified to be at all useful.

/g
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:07:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:07:51 UTC