W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > November 2010

Re: User Agent Test Plan Page

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:53:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4910673653.20101123195351@w3.org>
To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
CC: WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 7:37:33 PM, Tal wrote:

On Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 6:20:40 PM, Tal wrote:

TL> Hi Chris,

TL> I have been adding a lot of info to the User Agent test plan.

Which is great. 

For example, I casually wrote for 'mustuncompress' that there should be tests were all tables are compressed, some are, and none are. As you point out, some tiny tables will be larger when compressed and the spec forbids compressing them in that case. So 'all' in this test should really be 'all that can be'.

TL>  My
TL> additions have caused the page to become a bit overwhelming. Do
TL> you have any objections to me reorganizing the info on the page?

Or indeed splitting it up into sub-pages, if that would be easier.

TL>  I
TL> am thinking something like this would be more digestible:

TL> - valid woff files

Yes. There needs to be a set of test cases with valid files of various sorts, so we can tell whether a UA handles woff 
a) at all
b) well, for a good selection of the cases where it should accept the font

TL> - document test cases (I'm not sure what the right term is. I'm
TL> thinking of things like the CORS, CSS3, etc. tests.)

For the valid woff files UA tests, they will need to use @font-face anyway, no? 

Maybe I am not seeing what characteristics this group has. For example

TL> - file integrity test cases

Yes. These are mostly the 'must reject' cases, yes?

TL> - metadata display test cases

Right. Display of metadata is optional, so a UA that does not claim to display metadata can simply skip the whole block of tests.

You currently have a block of tests that don't correspond directly to testable assertions (but correspond to combinations of them, or to file format conformance statements, or to the general 'must reject invalid' and 'must accept valid' meta-statements.

Should these be collected in a group, or divided up? Do some of them correspond to explicit conformance statements that should be added to the spec?

TL> I wanted to clear this with you since you started the page.

Thanks for asking and yes, please do go ahead. The page was created as a start for collaborative work.



-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 18:53:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 November 2010 18:53:56 GMT