Removing or keeping <link>-ed rel=help as test requirement (issue 1730)

> 2. Test Metadata
>      https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1730

It seems to me that CSSWG people are focusing on the wrong things, 
otherwise over-focusing on minor things.

- Some tests are wrong, incorrect, bad; among them, some could be 
rehabilitated, some can not

- Some tests are imprecise

- Many tests are not streamlined, compact, minimized: eg unneedlessly 
over-contained, unneedlessly using abs. or rel positioning, with 
over-defined rules or extraneous declarations, with css 0-resets, etc

- A minority of tests are too long and would benefit from being split 
into smaller tests. Then, such smaller tests would become easier to 
read, examine, understand. As many specifications become more complex 
and more sophisticated, minimization of tests should be a requirement 
and should become increasingly important

- Many tests are missing a clear description of what the tests 
themselves are trying to test, of what they are claiming to be testing, 
are targeting, verifying exactly. Title text may not be helpful or 
descriptive, filename may not be best or too general, useful comments in 
the code might be absent

- A huge majority of tests do not reuse already created and available 
reference files: this increases test suites complexity, increase 
unneedlessly number of files and duplicates efforts, etc.

- A minority of tests can never fail

- A minority of tests can generate a false positive or a false negative; 
sometimes, a browser's own flaws (bugs or lack of support) make this 
impossible to overcome for a reftest but sometimes it is possible to 
overcome

- etc...

Removing or maintaining the rel=help links for tests as a requirement 
will not improve nor compensate adequately any of the above. Requiring a 
rel=help link in all tests will not necessarly give a reliable 
indication of (sufficient or insufficient) test coverage. Requiring a 
rel=help link in all tests will not necessarly reveal if tests are 
needed for some sections or if there are already many tests in some 
other sections.

The rel=help link for tests may be as useful as the ISBN bar code and 
the Dewey classification code are for a librarian and to a 
library/bookstore... that is if the ISBN bar code and the Dewey 
classification code are correct and precise to begin with. My point is: 
a missing or not, a good (correct, adequate) or bad (incorrect, wrong) 
Dewey classification code still does not (and will never) indicate at 
all if a book is a good (intrinsic value, worthiness), reliable, 
trustworthy, relevant book on a subject.

Gérard

Received on Friday, 1 September 2017 20:53:22 UTC