W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Towards a better testsuite: Metadata

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:56:10 +0900
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-Id: <666195C3-FADD-4864-8118-ACA65E5ABA87@rivoal.net>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

> On Apr 9, 2016, at 02:00, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
> I think we can simplify things down to:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <title>Explain *exactly* what situation you're testing
> and what it's supposed to do</title>
> <link rel="help" href="spec">
> <link rel="match" href="reference">
> 
> plus optional <meta name=flags> if needed for that test.
> (I agree with trimming down the flags as well; many are
> not really necessary at this point.)

Works for me. The only point I am not 100% sure about is putting the assertion/explanation in the title, as I think people have expectations that a title should be a few words, rather than one or two full sentences, and I worry a bit that this set up will give us under-described tests.

I think I'd prefer keeping the assertion in an assert meta, and effectively disregarding what goes into the title, but I don't know what's easier to teach and enforce:
- Writing long descriptive titles
- Having an assert meta

But either way, this is the right amount of information. We can discuss a little bit about whether this is the ideal way to mark it up or not, but if that's that format that people will accept I'm fine with it.

 - Florian
Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 00:56:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:38 UTC