W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > February 2015

RE: CSS 2.1 @charset tests invalidated by Level 3

From: Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:35:32 +0000
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB1992B9EFF3946906E5118E0AD250@BLUPR03MB199.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:00 AM Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:27:01 +0400,  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> >> CSS Syntax Level 3 invalidates some @charset tests in the CSS 2.1
> >> test suite. It’s not good for anyone when people think that a Level 3
> >> implementation is buggy when it correctly implements Level 3 but the
> >> Level 2.1 test suite shows red. Therefore, please rescind the
> >> following tests per
> >> http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/post/31865121758/the-joker-shares-his-

> appr
> >> oach-on-css2-1-issues
> >>
> >> Tests that are invalid per Level 3 but still pass (i.e. green for a
> >> different reason than the reason why they are supposed to be green):
> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-001.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-044.htm

> 
> Fixed the tests.

You created new tests for CSS-syntax. Please move these tests there (CSS-Syntax) and revert your changes to CSS 2.1. Those CSS 2.1 tests were correct for 2.1. And will remain correct unless we do some major reworking of the spec in errata which I seriously doubt.

It may be a good idea to put a note in the CSS 2.1 test cases that they have be superseded by new tests. Maybe even link to the new tests.

<p>Note: This test has been superseded by definitions from a newer level of CSS (<a href="">at-charset-0xx</a>).</p>

Think of it this way... As an implementer I am not required to implement in any particular order. I can go ahead and implement CSS 2.1 first and then at some later date implement CSS-Syntax. The test suites should remain independent for that reason. The only order I have to follow is newer levels of specs override older but I am not required to implement the latest and greatest right from the start.

> 
> >> Tests invalidated by Level 3:
> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-029.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-030.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-042.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-043.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-045.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-046.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-047.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-048.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-060.htm

> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-utf16-b

> >> e-001.htm
> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-utf16-l

> >> e-001.htm
> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/character-encoding

> >> -017.htm
> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/character-encoding

> >> -018.htm
> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/character-encoding

> >> -028.htm
> 
> Fixed the tests.
 
Please move, revert and provide a note. 

> Please see https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/3a54ecf96edb and let me know if I
> got something wrong.
> 
> >> The reasons why the above are now invalid:
> >>  1) BOM now overrides HTTP
> >>  2) BOM now overrides @charset
> >>  3) Non-ASCII @charset no longer gets honored
> >>  4) Bogus charset names now cause @charset to be ignored, not the
> >> sheet to be discarded.
> >>
> >> Tests whose validity was questionable to begin with:
> >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/at-charset-013.htm

> 
> Would you like this test to be removed? Or annotated as "MAY"? Something
> else? (We didn't discuss this test in particular at the f2f.)

Annotated would be good. I am thinking we might want to add a flag to the test case (replaced??). Though I am not sure what yet. For now provide a note:

<p>Note: This test has been superseded by definitions from a newer level of CSS (<a href="">at-charset-0xx</a>).</p>

You should also correct the help link to point to CSS-Syntax these new tests aren't part of CSS 2.1.

> >
> > It looks like these tests are still the latest. What should my
> > expectations be regarding getting CSS 2.1 tests rescinded when they
> > are invalidated by newer levels?
> 

The test are valid tests still for CSS 2.1. Though they may have been superseded by CSS-Syntax doesn't make them any less valid for CSS 2.1. The tests need a note in them stating that they are superseded. 

On a brighter note the tests seem perfectly ok for CSS-Syntax I will have no problem approving them once they are tweaked per my notes above.

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz



Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 15:36:04 UTC

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