W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2012

Re: border-001-018: updates and conversions

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:10:55 -0400
Message-ID: <e69a3fb3aa130ed9a8bd58369dad3bfd.squirrel@ed-sh-cp3.entirelydigital.com>
To: "Rebecca Hauck" <rhauck@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

Le Mer 12 septembre 2012 15:02, Rebecca Hauck a écrit :
> Hi Gérard,
> I've updated the first batch of borders tests to include CSS3 spec links
> and convert wherever possible. Since you've been doing a lot of
> conversions, I wanted to have you spot-check this first batch to make
> sure the changes I've made are ok.

You may want to have a look at this list of unreftestable tests:


in which I had double as border-style listed at item 20.

> Most/all of the tests in this suite are testing the border shorthand
> property – not specific property values, just various permutations &
> syntax.  I took the liberty of changing dashed borders to double in
> order to easily create references. Can you confirm that's ok?  The rest
> of the changes I made were smaller – increased width of the border,
> change "blue" to "green" in some cases.  Also, the wording of the assert
> I changed from "two boxes" to "two concentric squares" (for example).
> The latter is less ambiguous.
> The tests where I only added spec links I pushed back to the approved
> directory:  border 001, 003, 005, 006, 008. (maybe these can be flipped
> back to Approved now?)
> The ones I converted and changed are forked and pushed to my submitted
> folder: rhauck/submitted/css3-backgroundsborders:  border 002, 004, 007,
> 009-018.

Here, I'm pretty sure this is not okay. There are now 2 unique tests
with the same border-002 filename and they are different.


If we leave things as they are, then I believe the build system will not
succeed tonight.

> Also, one last question:  can you clarify the proper tagging I should be
> doing in the subject line for other mails of the nature?  Should I be
> adding [RC6] to them as you do?

Identifying tests with their respective RC collections is going to be
useful if there are eventual future RC. If an email discusses
difficulties, problems of a specific test in, say, [RC3], then this
is/will be useful as anyone can look into [RC4] for such test to see if
and how the difficulties, problems were corrected (or not).

There will be an [RC7] for sure, possibly this fall.


One thing I did not do so far is list all the tests for which I have an
entirely new versions (which I mentioned in Shepherd) and that are
proposed as replacements. Some that I remember:





Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:

CSS 2.1 test suite harness:

Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 22:11:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:18 UTC