- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:32:24 -0000
- To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:26:47 -0000, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > Correction: "in a *correct* implementation of CSS, you can never reach > that scenario". These are test cases; they cannot, by definition, assume > the implementation to be correct. > > David's proposal does verify that p did not turn red but then assumes > the [1badAttr] selector to be the only possible cause. So if my own > amateurish early-stage CSS implementation selected [1badAttr] and had a > cascade bug causing color to not get overridden in this case - or maybe > simply no or very little cascading code yet - I would pass his version > of the test with flying colors because XHTML well-formedness demands it. > Would that be helpful to me as an implementor ? You would fail a bunch of other tests if that was the case. The goal is having a correct implementation of CSS, of course. > You may call this overly conservative. But I'd rather be conservative > and thorough first, well-formed second. This is not a web site. It's a > test suite. It's not really about being well-formed, it's about the test not making that much sense given what CSS parsing already requires. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 19:33:23 UTC