- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 06:41:27 +0000
- To: Jet Villegas <jet@mozilla.com>
- CC: "robin@berjon.com" <robin@berjon.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>, "jason@cloudfour.com" <jason@cloudfour.com>, jeanfrancois moy <jeanfrancois.moy@orange.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
On 5/4/12 3:25 AM, "Jet Villegas" <jet@mozilla.com> wrote: >I'm suggesting that the current system is pretty easy to game, an example >from the CSS text tests: > > assert( H.test.cssProp( elem, "wordBreak" ), "wordBreak supported" ); > >We can "fix" Firefox to pass that test and go 100% green on ring 0 >without having any word breaking at all. The expensive part of wordBreak >isn't exposing the "wordBreak" string in the JS API's (yet that's all you >need to pass!) It's premature to assert that you're testing for wordBreak >with the tests as coded. I would leave it off any rings until it actually >does something. Let's not mixup quality and coverage extent of the test suite with spec content. >That's my concern about the rings as they are pass/fail. In my example, >the expensive part of getting a "100% correct" wordBreak implementation >is probably breaking words with complex ligatures on right-to-left Arabic >text. Will ringmark really "fail" a browser with a zero score for >wordBreak on such a test? Let's give them grades instead No. Let's write more better tests. --tobie
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 06:42:33 UTC