Re: Requirements for (level >=3) tests

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> While I agree with you that the order of big and small should be consistent
> in that particular test, I very much disagree that the compact inline form
> of this test is clearer.

In that case, we have disagreement, so it's a matter of preference
rather than functionality.  As such, I don't believe either format
should be required.  It should be up to the one writing or maintaining
the test in question.  It should not be up to people who are neither
writing nor reviewing nor maintaining the test, because they have no
stake in the matter.

2012/2/21 "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>:
> Aryeh, you do not intend to comply with the current format guidelines,
> do you? You only want to comply with the format guidelines that suit
> you, that you feel are adequate to you, to your coding style.

I do not intend to accept the format guidelines as mandates from
heaven that must be obeyed without question.  I will follow any that
are based on sound reasoning, such as if the guideline allows easier
integration with preexisting tools that manage the test suite.  If
there are any guidelines that merely reflect the stylistic preferences
of whoever wrote the guidelines, I intend to object to those
guidelines and suggest they be removed, or made specific to the CSS
2.1 test suite and not all future test suites.

I don't intend to update my tests to follow other people's stylistic
preferences, because it's counterproductive.  It makes them harder for
me to read, and I'm the one maintaining them right now.  If I take
other people's stylistic preferences into account, it will only be if
it will serve some demonstrably productive purpose, such as aiding
review.  All this applies whether or not those other people call their
preferences guidelines.

Of course, one demonstrably productive purpose to changing my tests
would be if the CSSWG wants to reject my tests if they don't follow
the guidelines, stylistic or otherwise.  If this were to happen, it
would serve as a pretty clear indication that the CSSWG cares more
about its internal procedures than practicality.  Such a reaction
would encourage me to focus all my future standards efforts on things
that don't involve the CSSWG, such as HTML and the DOM.  If you want
people to do work within your organization, you're best served by
giving them as much leeway as possible to do things how they want to.
Especially if you aren't paying them.

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> If the test is not easy to analyze, it's generally hard to impossible to
> tell whether the test is demonstrating a bug in the test or a bug in
> browsers, especially if several browsers agree on their rendering of the
> test.

This doesn't apply to minor stylistic variations like inline style vs.
<style> elements.  Those aren't going to impede any analysis.

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:52:31 UTC