W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: comments on the current SVG test template

From: Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:21:05 +0100
Message-ID: <1357845665.11554.37.camel@LeLion>
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org, cam@mcc.id.au

Hi... my internet provider's filter has blocked Cameron's email as
usual. My comments are preceded by "-->"
------------------------------------------

Hi everyone,

I was just thinking about tests again, and looking at the most recent 
revision of the template in 
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2/Testing_Requirements (at the 
bottom of the page), I have a few more comments.  I would really love it 
if we could pare it back -- the more complex the template, the bigger 
the mental barrier (at least for) to actually use it and write tests.

(Also, we really need to get Shepherd running on our nascent test suite. 
  Does anyone remember what is required to get this going, or have 
pointers to where we have discussed this?  I seem to have forgotten. :\)

--> I think we need Peter Linss' help here. Note that many of the changes from the SVG 1.1 test template to the SVG 2 test template were made to facilitate this.

(1) On the wiki page there it is mentioned that:

   xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" to be removed after SVG2
   adopted

I'm not sure what "adopted" means here.  Once the specification is a 
recommendation?  Is this under the assumption that we add our own <link> 
element to SVG?  (I think we have discussed this and people liked the 
idea, though I can't find an open issue for it.)  Is there any reason 
not to, once we add <link> to the spec, use it rather than <html:link> 
in the test template?  Note that those <link> elements there aren't 
relying on any particular behaviour like a <link rel="stylesheet"> would 
have.

--> You need to be able to run tests independent of if a browser/renderer has added support for our own <link>.


(2) On the root element width="100%" height="100%" are the lacuna 
values, so we can remove them.

--> Sounds reasonable.

(3) What is the purpose of the id="svg-root"?  If it has none, can we 
remove it?

--> I think to interface with Shephard

(4) Is it necessary to include the copyright/license links in each test, 
or is it possible to have them somewhere more globally (like at the root 
of the test suite) to avoid the repetition?  I am just wondering why the 
CSS tests don't have this but we do.

--> We discussed this already, I don't remember the reasoning for including a link. This is a vast improvement over 1.1 where the copyright/licence was in the template.

(5) What is the <!-- YYYY-MM-DD --> for?

--> Date of review.

(6) I find it a bit strange that class="" is used as in <metadata 
class="flags"> and <desc class="assert">.  While <desc> allows style="" 
and class="" (I *think* because of tooltip stuff), <metadata> doesn't. 
Just like we do not put a class="" on <title> to identify it as the 
title, can we perhaps use <desc> without a class="" to hold the test 
assertion?  For <metadata>... not sure.  I wonder if in addition to 
<metadata> we should have <meta> in SVG as well, the former being for 
structured metadata content (it taking children), the latter for 
name–content pairs as in HTML?  If we did do this then I would suggest 
just using <meta name="assert"> rather than <desc>.  Regardless, 
class="" doesn't seem like exactly the right attribute to use on <metadata>.

--> I think this was to make it easier for Shepard to extract the relevant info.

(7) Do we need the FreeSans font reference in each test?  One of the 
great advantages of being reftests is that the test passing conditions 
need not depend on exact fonts.  Most CSS tests don't require particular 
fonts.  I think we can get away with not using FreeSans in most cases 
too, and therefore I think we needn't have the @font-face rule there in 
the template.

--> This is put in for visual tests only. It is not in the automated test template. It is there so that the labels are a known size (won't extend outside of SVG regions, etc.)

(8) Is there a particular need to have the <style id="test-style"> 
present?  I think it is understandable that CSS tests have a dedicated 
place to put the CSS being tested (as most tests will have a <style> 
that is the focus of the test), but I don't think we need that.  I think 
we definitely don't need the type="text/css" on it, anyway.

--> This only needs to be included if it is needed for the test (as the comment states).

(9) Can we leave out the <defs></defs>?  Test authors can add a <defs> 
if they need one.

--> This should be marked as optional (like <style>.

(10) Do we want to continue placing the test title visibly in the file? 
  The CSS tests do not do this.  I don't think it is necessary, and it 
requires the authors to duplicate information that is already in the 
<title>.

--> Again, this is only for visual test where it is helpful if one is scanning lots of tests to know what one is looking at. Depending on how the testing is done, the info in the <title> element may not be visible.

(11) Is there an need for <g id="test-body-content">?  Can we just write 
our test content after the <g id="testmeta">?  (I think it makes some 
sense to keep it if we do not remove the visible title text per (10).)

--> Makes it easier for Shepard, I think.

Sorry for all of this sounding quite negative, but I think it is 
important that the template be simple.

--> Tav
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 19:21:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:16 UTC