Re: SVG IG Torture tests

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:32:03 -0600
Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wade,
> 
> The 'unsorted' is where I've been putting my ad hoc tests.  You can
> take a look at the examples there to get an idea of what I considered
> an acceptable format - but feel free to invent your own.

I've put it under unsorted. I'm debating how much explanation should go
on the page to explain expected behavior. (For that matter, I'm a bit
unclear on whether this is actually the expected behavior.

G. Wade

> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> > Hi, Wade-
> >
> > G. Wade Johnson wrote (on 2/7/10 4:45 PM):
> >>
> >> Now taking the list in a completely different direction, I've got a
> >> question on the torture tests.
> >>
> >> I stumbled across an issue with (at least) radial gradients that is
> >> different between different browsers/viewers. It's not exactly a
> >> "torture test", but it is a good compatibility test.
> >
> > That sounds perfect as a start on a set of practical tests.
> >
> >
> >> Do we have a preferred form for this kind of test?
> >>
> >> I was thinking of an HTML page with variants of the SVG listed on
> >> the left and PNGs with the expected output on the right, labeled
> >> appropriately. Does that match other people's expectations? Should
> >> each variant have it's own HTML page? Do we have any suggestions on
> >> standardized naming, yet?
> >>
> >> If there are no defined approaches yet, I'll probably toss my
> >> examples into svgtorture, assuming we'll move things around as
> >> consensus gels.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to simply put whatever you have up there.
> >  We can always change the format later, what we need is the meat of
> > the tests.
> >
> > Regards-
> > -Doug Schepers
> > W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
> >
> >
> 


-- 
To vacillate or not to vacillate, that is the question ... or is it?

Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 01:24:38 UTC