- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:15:48 +0200
- To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:41:21 +0100, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote: > That doesn't work for me. We should avoid using any of the special words > (MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, > RECOMMENDED, MAY and OPTIONAL) in pass conditions. These all have > special meanings and should be used sparingly and only when it is really > appropriate. In fact I think I only use any of those terms maybe 10 or > so times throughout the entire test suite and only when it is left up to > the user agent to decide what to do. Also the example <p>This text > should be green</p> is flawed. It's not that is "should be" it must be > green to pass. How do you know if the test passes you have no check? You > need to state what needs to happen in order to pass the test. "Test > passes if" was our standard and clearly tells anybody when the test > passes. I'm not sure why you think RFC 2119 terms have special meaning in test cases, I think they don't. I.e. "should be" is used in the English way and just means that in order to pass it needs to be green. Anyway, I'm willing to conceed on this as it does not really matter much in the end I suppose. Though I'm not sure if I'd be willing to go as far as rejecting other tests that do use this terminology. > Changing the tests just makes it slower to run the cases and potentially > causes problems. We can probably automate a whole lot in ECMAScript using getComputedStyle or some such I suspect. (If we want to.) By the way, I'm still waiting on an answer from you regarding this e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2009Feb/0011.html That is regarding test at-charset-039. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 15:16:37 UTC