W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Testing SHOULD

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 08:50:43 -0700
Message-ID: <481C89D3.7080701@inkedblade.net>
To: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

Alan Gresley wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
>> There are three levels of requirement in the CSS specs
>> MUST - the behavior is required
>> SHOULD/RECOMMENDED - the behavior is required unless there's a
>>                      good reason not to do it
>> MAY - the behavior is allowed
>> We're testing as many MUST requirements as we can, of course,
>> but it would be useful to also test SHOULD requirements. However,
>> we should distinguish these tests somehow from the MUST tests.
>> I was thinking to have a flag for SHOULD tests. Not sure what
>> to call it... optional? should? recommend?
>> Comments?
> I would say RECOMMENDED since 'should' or similar 'could' are quite weak 
> words considering there 'should' be good reason not to do it (the 
> behavior). For MAY I 'would' like OPTIONAL instead.

Ok, I'm adding two flags to the list:

   Behavior tested is RECOMMENDED, but not REQUIRED. [RFC2119]
   Behavior tested is preferred but OPTIONAL. [RFC2119] (These tests
   must be reviewed by a test suite owner or peer.)

I shortened 'recommended' to 'rec' in the interests of
   a) keeping it short
   b) avoiding spelling mistakes :)

'Optional' should be added only if the behavior tested is the preferred
behavior: we don't want to encourage implementors to pass tests on
discouraged behavior. (If there's a case where neither behavior is preferred,
then both behaviors should be tested.) These tests require test suite
Owner/Peer review because which behavior is preferred is not always

Does that sound reasonable? (Arron?)

Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 15:51:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:13 UTC