- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:16:34 -0700
- To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "Řyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com>
> On 09/11/2010 07:31 AM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> ==== Ian Hickson ==== >>> >>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/background-root-020.htm >>> There are no "links below". Also, the last two sentences should be >>> rewritten to not require an understanding of the specification >> >> >> Proposed replacement: >> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-root-020.htm > > Test updated. I didn't add the interact flag, but instead clarified > the instructions a little more. The test doesn't require interaction, > the pass/fail conditions are just easier to determine that way. Those testcases are unretrievable (syntax errors, building errors) http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/colors/background-root-020.xht http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/colors/background-root-020.htm >> -------------------- >> >>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/tables-001.htm >>> This test could use a description/an explicit pass condition >> >> Proposed replacement: >> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/tables-001.htm > > I've copied your pass condition, but left most of the code alone. > I don't want to alter hixie's tests unless they're wrong -- it's > often hard to figure out what failure modes he had in mind, and > I'd rather not remove any. I'm not sure what he had in mind for > this one. That testcase is not obvious or easy to figure out. I thought all of Ian Hickson's testcases were abandoned. > Also when updating tests, if you could avoid changing anything > that doesn't *need* changing (things like indentation and the like), > that would make it much easier for me to figure out what's changed > so I can review the changes. Ok. I will do this. > BTW, an explanation of how the particular test works should be > placed in a comment, not in the test assertion. The test assertion > should be a general statement that the test is trying to prove. Ok. This is now very clear. I have "overloaded" the <meta> asserts of a few testcases with explanations in the past. regards, Gérard -- Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ CSS 2.1 test suite (beta 3; August 15th 2010): http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/toc.html CSS 2.1 test suite contributors: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 01:17:10 UTC