W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Proposal for precisely flagging optional specifications

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:34:04 -0800
Message-ID: <4B22E4FC.8070000@inkedblade.net>
To: James Hopkins <james@idreamincode.co.uk>
CC: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
James Hopkins wrote:
>> If the goal of this META is to aid the test's reviewer, then I think just
>> including an "if" clause in the assert should be sufficient.
>>  "If the UA does this, then it must do that."
> The reason that I suggested this addition, was because there's nothing 
> currently on http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/format (or any of the 
> other test authoring documents), that deal with the issue of describing 
> optionality in the context of my example. My proposal deals with this 
> issue without 'busying' the assert, as it is a separate mechanism 
> entirely. However, if you're not willing to accept my proposal, then may 
> I suggest a change to the assert description at 
> http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/format, which would mention the use of 
> the assert to describe optional behavior?

I've added
   # If the assertion is only valid in certain cases, those conditions
   # should be described in the statement.

Is that ok?

Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 00:34:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:14 UTC