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

Re: Testsuite flags

From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:17:55 -0400
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4eb86173e45cff37f6462822c34c1002@gtalbot.org>
Le 2016-08-18 02:15, fantasai a écrit :
> On 08/17/2016 09:48 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>> 

>> I'd like to drop font, and vastly reduce the number of tests that
>> require fonts to be installed by just relying on @font-face more (I 
>> hope
>> we've reached a point where we can rely on it now!). Obviously we 
>> can't
>> completely eliminate having to install fonts, but we can make it rare.
> 
> I think we can, indeed, do that. If a UA doesn't support @font-face,
> then it can just assume that any test that includes @font-face and
> isn't testing @font-face requires special font installation.
> We should document that maybe. :)



Regarding font flag
- - - - - - - - - -

I am for dropping the font flag and use @font-face, but...

How do you propose that we should use the @font-face then? With or 
without woff files? I ask because .woff files and .woff2 files may not 
be rendered the same way across browsers... How well do we know if woff 
files are rendered the same across browsers and platforms?

Other questions.

Shouldn't we always use src: local() to avoid, prevent downloading and 
loading processes?

If the font file to be downloaded and installed (.otf or .ttf and/or 
.woff or .woff2)'s filesize is big (say > 50Kb), can this affect 
automation of test results? Eg mplus-1p-regular.woff filesize is greater 
than 700Kb and it is currently being used in 468 tests right now.

Let's say I copy and paste the mplus-1p-regular.woff and the 
mplus-1p-regular.ttf files in a /support folder. Then what would be the 
best recommendable coding practice for testing and test authors here?

  @font-face
    {
      font-family: "mplus-1p-regular";
      src: url("support/mplus-1p-regular.woff") format("woff");
      /* filesize: 803300 bytes (784.5 KBytes) */
    }

or

  @font-face
    {
      font-family: "mplus-1p-regular";
      src: local(M+1p) ,
      url(support/mplus-1p-regular.ttf) format("opentype") ,
      url("support/mplus-1p-regular.woff") format("woff");
    }

or something else?

I am convinced we need some clear, explicit guidelines on how to use 
@font-face.


>> I'm also going to point out that as we try and converge on
>> web-platform-tests policies we're going to end up requiring "-manual"
>> filename suffixes on all tests flagged with animated, font, history,
>> interact, paged, speech, or userstyle. We may want to drop some of 
>> these
>> prior to that, however (or rather, more likely, say "these are
>> deprecated and should be treated identically to interact").
> 
> I think it's reasonably likely that some UA will have an automated way
> to handle animated tests at some point. So it seems reasonable to keep
> that separate.


Regarding animated, interact and scroll flags
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Several HTML-to-PDF web-aware softwares (eg: Prince 10 release 7, 
AntennaHouse Formatter V6 [2] and possibly others that I am not aware 
of) are able to support a great deal of CSS. Those 3 flags help refine 
their test suite results.

[1]: Prince version 10, CSS Properties
https://www.princexml.com/doc/properties/

[2]: AntennaHouse Formatter V6.3's CSS implementation
https://www.antennahouse.com/product/ahf63/ahf-css6.html


> Paged tests can be automated in Gecko. The are not manual.

They require some code too:
<html class="reftest-print">

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685012#c49
See comments 49 to 57 for a discussion on this.

Gérard
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 21:18:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 23 August 2016 21:18:32 UTC