- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:48:39 -0700
- To: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Anne Van Kesteren wrote:
> You would fail a bunch of other tests if that was the case. The goal is
> having a correct implementation of CSS, of course.
We're not talking about other tests, we're talking about this one. My deficient implementation would pass David's proposal even though it is not dropping a rule that must be dropped, which is what the testcase is supposed to be verifying.
> It's not really about being well-formed, it's about the test not making
> that much sense given what CSS parsing already requires.
If it's not about being well-formed, why are we having this thread ? :) Given these rules :
p { color: green; }
p, [1badAttr] { color: red; }
The only way to ensure the entire second rule is dropped is to test both selectors in the group vs. testing one and assuming the other goes away with it because, well, if the UA can drop one then of course it's dropping the other also because duh, that's what the spec says it should do...
Verifying the entire rule is dropped will require invalid markup though. If the latter is not an issue then let's fix this test as proposed and move on.
Fwiw, I do agree with David that the current version only verifies that the element is not selected vs. verifying the rule has been dropped. His proposal does address this but is, imo, incomplete as long as it does not attempt to also select that invalid attribute.
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 19:49:22 UTC