RE: STYLE_SHEETS_USE test

>would that work for the Checker Musketeers?

 :-) Yes, it would be better, indeed. FWIW, I think that this way we can
have a pure declarative StyleSheetUse test.

We will tackle this issue early next week and we report to checker list
the conclusion of this.

Best wishes,

Abel.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
Enviado el: viernes, 04 de julio de 2008 19:14
Para: Abel Rionda
CC: public-mobileok-checker; public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Asunto: Re: STYLE_SHEETS_USE test

 > The problem is that, AFAIK, CSS Validator *does not* distinguish
between
 > the subtests of STYLE_SHEET_USE. I mean, if we consider the example
you
 > put in your last mail:

I don't think we lose much by having a single warn for everything, 
frankly, so the text of the test would look like:

a) Remove the following

Note:

The tests on CSS property values only apply to properties defined by CSS

Level 1; other properties are ignored for the purposes of this test.


b) change all from "if there is CSS Style" to say:

If there is CSS Style (see 2.4.5 CSS Style)

	If all styles are restricted to presentation media types other
than 
"handheld" or "all" by means of @media at-rules, warn

	If the CSS Style contains at-rules (other than the @media
at-rule, and 
the presentation media type list of the @import at-rule), properties, or

values that are not recognized as being specified in CSS Level 1, or if 
the value of a recognized CSS Level 1 property is incompatible with the 
property, warn

would that work for the Checker Musketeers?

Jo

On 04/07/2008 17:35, Abel Rionda wrote:
> Hi Jo,
> 
> Hi Jo,
> 
> Some comments inline:
> 
>> So the most we can and should do is warn -- unless there is a basic 
>> syntax error like
> 
>> zillon {planet:tharg {
> 
>> in which case we should FAIL.
> 
>> Can you tell the difference between that type of error and one of the

>> STYLE_SHEET_USE types of error?
> 
> Yes, I could distinguish (CSS Validator does) between parsing errors
and
> the other kind of errors that STYLE_SHEET_USE defines (these are
raised
> as warnings).
> 
> The problem is that, AFAIK, CSS Validator *does not* distinguish
between
> the subtests of STYLE_SHEET_USE. I mean, if we consider the example
you
> put in your last mail:
> 
>> There is a difference between STYLE_SHEET_USE-5, STYLE_SHEET_USE-6
>> color: orangey-blue;  /* not a recognized value */
>> color: thin; /* a recognized value but not appropriate to color */
> 
> CSS Validator would provide us the following output:
> 
> <warning>
>        <info>orangey-blue is not a color value</info>
> 	[...]
> </warning>
> <warning>
>       <info>thin is not a color value</info>
>         [... ]
> </warning>
> 
> So this is our main concern about this test. We would have to
implement
> an ad-hoc solution that would wrap the output of CSSValidator and then
> we should treat it in order to distinguish each subtest case. 
> 
> Unless I am missing something, this would be a considerable
development
> effort taking into account the available resources (time and human).
> 
> Abel.
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
> Enviado el: viernes, 04 de julio de 2008 16:35
> Para: Abel Rionda
> CC: public-mobileok-checker; public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: STYLE_SHEETS_USE test
> 
> Hi Abel
> 
> Aaargh, now that you point it out, the text of this test needs
changing.
> 
> Specifically the Note is wrong as STYLE_SHEET_USE-5 specifically tests

> for properties that are not defined in CSS Level 1. So delete that
note.
> 
> There is a difference between STYLE_SHEET_USE-5, STYLE_SHEET_USE-6
> 
> color: orangey-blue;  /* not a recognized value */
> 
> color: thin; /* a recognized value but not appropriate to color */
> 
> color: 22; /* ditto */
> 
> If anything I'd say that STYLE_SHEET_USE-7 and STYLE_SHEET_USE-8 are 
> both contained in STYLE_SHEET_USE-6.
> 
> border-width: 22; /* requires a unit but doesn't have one */
> 
> border-width: 22Hz;  /* has the wrong type of unit, though actually I
am
> 
> not sure this can happen in CSS 1 */
> 
> I would not be at all bothered if we combined all these into a single 
> clause, however it would have to remain a warn ...
> 
> ... ref the checker's CSS validator. The whole discussion about CSS
(if 
> I recall correctly) came up as a Last Call comment from Bert Bos. And 
> (again, if I remember correctly) we agreed to change. I don't know how

> we could ignore that now. In any case, it is quite simply wrong to
fail 
> on unknown properties etc. it's very much the intention of CSS that a 
> CSS2 style sheet works just fine in CSS1 simply by ignoring the stuff 
> that is not understood.
> 
> So the most we can and should do is warn -- unless there is a basic 
> syntax error like
> 
> zillon {planet:tharg {
> 
> in which case we should FAIL.
> 
> Can you tell the difference between that type of error and one of the 
> STYLE_SHEET_USE types of error?
> 
> 
> Jo
> 
> On 04/07/2008 12:25, Abel Rionda wrote:
>> Hi Jo,
>>
>>> This is particularly fraught since CSS is by design open-ended so 
>>> outside of the syntax requiring certain combinations of valid tokens
>> and 
>>> punctuation, almost Anything Goes [1].
>> Yes, indeed. BTW, great song that reminds me of the opening scene of
>> Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom...
>>
>> So the definition of valid CSS under 2.4.8 is a simple syntax
checking
>> without lexical checking at all. I think that call this "CSS Valid"
is
> a
>> bit confusing for the user (CSS Valid would be inferred by the user
as
>> *valid* as the spec of the CSS Level x states). 
>>
>> Besides the special CSS Validity, STYLE_SHEETS_USE is still
> duplicating
>> some checks.  This test has a note regarding CSS properties that are
>> defined or not on Level 1:
>>
>> "Note: The tests on CSS property values only apply to properties
> defined
>> by CSS Level 1; other properties are ignored for the purposes of this
>> test."
>>
>> Having this note on mind and applying the following checks, 
>>
>> --
>> "If the CSS Style contains at-rules (other than the @media at-rule,
> and
>> the media list of the @import at-rule), properties, or values that
are
>> not recognized as being specified in CSS Level 1, warn
>>
>> If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that is
> inappropriate
>> to it, warn"
>> --
>> Some questions come to my mind:
>>
>> Is the same "not recognized" and "inappropriate"?, could a "not
>> recognized" value be appropriate?, I don't think so.
>>
>> The first check contains the second one. Any warn reported by the
> second
>> will be also reported by the first. There are the following
>> possibilities:
>>
>> - In case of a CSS Level 1 property with a "not recognized" value,
> both
>> checks apply.
>> - If the case is a non CSS Level 1 property the first check will
> report
>> a warn but, as stated by the special note, the second one will be
>> ignored.
>>
>>
>> Also both "not recognized" and "inappropriate" terms should be
>> clarified, i.e. is a font-size value of 1000px inappropriate? , is
>> "inappropriate" used as a synonym of a non CSS Level 1 valid value?
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I think we are going to run into problems in the current
> checker
>> implementation:
>>
>> -I do no see a way to deactivate these features in our CSS validation
>> tool (CSS Validator makes a complete grammar validation) and making
an
>> ad-hoc solution would tale a considerable development effort.
>> Particularly, STYLE_SHEETS_USE test (currently these subtests are not
>> made) is going to be hard to implement basing on the checker design
> and
>> our limited time to dedicate to this.
>>
>> I am not sure what the best decision on this is if we want to release
>> checker in a reasonable time.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Abel.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
>> Enviado el: viernes, 04 de julio de 2008 11:00
>> Para: Abel Rionda
>> CC: public-mobileok-checker; public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
>> Asunto: Re: STYLE_SHEETS_USE test
>>
>> Hi Abel
>>
>> We jumped through a couple of hoops of fire around this subject
> possibly
>> during LC-1 or LC-2 (the mobileOK Jurassic Period, perhaps). As far
as
> I
>> can recall the question was around exactly what is meant by "valid 
>> CSS1". This is particularly fraught since CSS is by design open-ended
> so
>> outside of the syntax requiring certain combinations of valid tokens
> and
>> punctuation, almost Anything Goes [1].
>>
>> Consequently, we have the definition of valid CSS under 2.4.8:
>>
>>      A resource is considered a valid CSS resource if it conforms to
> the
>> grammar defined in [CSS], Appendix B (see note below), except that 
>> @media at-rules, which are not part of the grammar, are allowed and
> are 
>> not considered invalid. The presence of at-rules, properties or
values
> 
>> or combinations of properties and values that are not specified in
> [CSS]
>> does not constitute a validity failure for CSS. See 3.21 
>> STYLE_SHEETS_USE for treatment of such values. In addition, the
@media
> 
>> at-rule and the presentation media list for the @import at-rule are 
>> taken into account when evaluating CSS.
>>
>> [I've just  spotted that the clause "see note below" is a dangling 
>> reference and needs to be removed.]
>>
>> So I think what is happening here is that the checker CSS Validation 
>> that is being carried out is actually stricter than that implied by 
>> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and is potentially mis-reporting inappropriate

>> combinations of properties and values as failures under that heading.

>> They should in fact be reported under STYLE_SHEETS_USE.
>>
>> Note particularly that it is not invalid to use properties that are
> not 
>> known in CSS1, e.g.
>>
>> klingon {foo: bar;
>>      distance: 3light-years;
>> }
>>
>> is valid, though it contains properties values and units that are not

>> defined in CSS1.
>>
>> Hence the warns rather than the failures in STYLE_SHEETS_USE.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything_Goes_%28song%29
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/07/2008 09:17, Abel Rionda wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While we were reviewing the test implementation status in checker
>> code,
>>> we found out some checks 
>>> of STYLE_SHEETS_USE regarding CSS values that we would like to
> comment
>>> [1]:
>>>
>>> [begin STYLE_SHEETS_USE fragment]
>>>
>>> If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that is
>> inappropriate
>>> to it, warn
>>> If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that requires a
> unit
>>> or a percentage:
>>>       If the unit (or percentage) is not present, warn
>>>       If the unit (or percentage) is inappropriate to the value,
warn
>>>
>>> [end STYLE_SHEETS_USE fragment]
>>>
>>> All these checks are already made during grammar validation test
>>> (CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT) and they would raise a *FAIL* (while in
>>> STYLE_SHEETS_USE at most we would get a *warn*)
>>> We do not see any benefit of this duplicity and, furthermore, due to
>>> they raise different level errors, it might lead the user to
>> confusion.
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Abel.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20080610/#STYLE_SHEE
>>> TS_USE
>>>

Received on Friday, 4 July 2008 17:29:56 UTC