W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-flexbox-1] Untestable assertions

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:05:20 +0200
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, "Rossen Atanassov" <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wvlja61hidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:45:31 +0200, Arron Eicholz  
<Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> Who is "we"?  If you're trying to imply that the CSSWG has to test  
>> authoring
>> conformance criteria in order to exit CR, you're wrong.  No WG has ever  
>> been
>> blocked from advancing for failing to test authoring criteria.
>
> "We" is test writers and the testers that have to verify the test cases  
> that are written. The working group has very little to do with either of  
> these. The WG sets of the criteria to write tests and right now it is  
> loosely defined to encompass all normative statements require tests.  
> Thus we then run into my issue that I called out.

I think this is the problematic part. Some conformance classes (e.g.  
authors/validators) should probably be excluded from the "needs tests"  
requirement.

Authoring conformance requirements that can be checked by an automated  
validator can in theory be tested by writing tests for the validator.  
http://simon.html5.org/test/validator/attribute-values/img-usemap/just-a-hash.html  
is an example of such a test.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 19:05:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC