On Friday 2007-08-03 01:39 -0400, fantasai wrote: > >Should I be listing 27a and 27b as failure tests? > > I'm not sure. It would depend on whether > foo:not(foo) > would be considered a failure test. There's nothing invalid about those > tests, > they're just using selectors that will never match. I looked at a bunch of other tests categorized as failure tests, and many of them did seem to be tests that selectors didn't match (e.g., 182, 155a, 155b, 155c, and 175b). So I think this is ok. (Perhaps 155d and 175c are incorrectly marked as a failure tests, though.) > > >And does anybody see a better solution for how to list 27a? > > List it under :root? 27b might also fit better there. I think 27b is pretty clearly testing the descendant combinator -- that it doesn't combine to anything above the root element. And I think 27a is testing something that's a clear conformance statement for each of the selectors I put it under, whereas it's not testing any conformance statements for :root. I think it really does belong in multiple places. My main question was whether it's better to list it in all those multiple places, or once, with a special heading that indicates it belongs in all of them. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 07:50:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:12 UTC