- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:01:43 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 2:40:56 AM, Boris wrote: BZ> If the test is not easy to analyze, it's generally hard to impossible to BZ> tell whether the test is demonstrating a bug in the test or a bug in BZ> browsers, especially if several browsers agree on their rendering of the BZ> test. BZ> Note that being easy to analyze is the important thing; good coding BZ> practice is only relevant insofar as it aids analysis. Agreed. Further, a good test may deliberately use what would otherwise be bad coding practice. When coding in general, smooth fallback in the case of non-implementation of a particular feature is desirable. For a test, accidental false positives are undesirable; the test will be designed to break very obviously if a particular feature is not correctly implemented. People learning CSS should thus not be looking at the test suite for examples on how to use a particular feature in practice. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:01:49 UTC