W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > August 2007

RE: Additional flags needed

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:58:20 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <66D5CB5D6AB0694592FAF5487C50368B11C14D1242@NA-EXMSG-C111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

fantasai wrote:

> So none of these require an XMLonly flag or an XHTMLonly flag. Were
> there others
> you had in mind?

Yes there is one more. What about the examples just before section 17.3? Those are XML only examples and not valid HTML or XHTML. This is one of the times where you need the XMLonly flag. I think you have convinced me that there is no current need for the XHTMLonly flag since XHTML should work for XML as well.

> > Also we were wondering about ideas for a flag that identified that
> you
> > have a supporting XHTML/HTML file. We currently use 'file' though I
> > think it is too generic any suggestions here?
> What do you mean by "a supporting XHTML/HTML file"?

In the case of a frameset case where you need to load another page in order for the test to work properly. This case is in section 17.6.1 where you need a frameset for the case. Currently we are using the flag 'file' but it's not standard yet and personally I think it's to generic.
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 19:58:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:12 UTC