- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:51:17 -0400
- To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Rebecca Hauck" <rhauck@adobe.com>, "www-style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>
Le Mar 30 juillet 2013 13:26, Arron Eicholz a écrit : > On Monday, July 29, 2013 7:04 PM Gérard Talbot wrote: >> Le Lun 29 juillet 2013 20:28, Rebecca Hauck a écrit : >> > Hi, >> > >> >>From last week's telecon, ACTION-571 [1] - >> > >> > I've assessed the work that needs to be done in the test suites to >> get >> > ready for republishing. There are approximately 240 existing tests >> for >> > the >> > 22 items listed in the errata. With some advanced searching in >> > Shepherd, I was able to identify which have no tests and which have >> > pertinent tests that may (need to be) modified to accurately reflect >> > the new language in the spec. Details all on the wiki [2] - see "CSS >> > 2.1 Errata." Note that the Shepherd queries there are filtered >> within >> > each spec section to be as relevant possible to the changes described >> > in the errata and in the corresponding minutes. >> > >> > Please let me know if you are familiar with any of these items and >> > have time to review or write tests associated with them. I've not >> > gone through this process before, so I'd be interested to hear how >> the >> > work required has been assigned and completed in the past. Just as a >> > data point, and as a logical start to addressing these, I added names >> > of people who proposed the change and who are listed as Owners of the >> tests. >> > >> > I'm happy to manage and track this process and will use this wiki & >> > Shepherd to do so. I'd like continue this discussion at the upcoming >> > telecon to solicit help from WG members on these items. >> > >> > Let me know if I missed anything or if you have questions. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > -Rebecca >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [1] https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/actions/571 >> > [2] http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1 >> > >> >> The only and sole test that needs to be reviewed and approved for >> s.15.3a >> (clarification) has to be: >> >> [src] >> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/font-family- >> rule-004a.xht >> >> [nightly-unstable] >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-rule- >> 004a.htm >> >> since it checks 9 ways of declaring font-family with inherit (with and >> without >> quotes). >> >> Also, it would be best if the current >> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-rule- >> 004.htm >> >> would be removed and replaced with >> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-rule- >> 004a.htm >> > > While I agree that font-family-rule-004a is a better test in general it is > not testing the specific scenario that is in the 004 case. Both are still > necessary at the moment because the 004 case tests that a font named > inherit can actually be loaded and used if quoted. Okay. Agreed. Gérard -- CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 19:51:51 UTC