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

Re: CSS 2.1 @charset tests invalidated by Level 3

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:44:56 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBU0MKc65jHex-EdWSpV0WMOOyOnn8ShhLLuksp0A6y0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>
Cc: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 7:46 AM Ms2ger [mailto:ms2ger@gmail.com] wrote:
>> On 02/11/2015 04:35 PM, Arron Eicholz wrote:
>> > 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 they have be superseded by new tests.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.
>>
>> I'm not sure what goal you're pursuing here, but mine, and I hope the
>> CSSWG's as well, is improving interoperability. Your suggestion hurts that
>> goal, so I find it objectionable.
>>
>
> I understand your goal but that isn't the goal of the test suites. The test suites are created to test specifications not interoperability or browsers compliance. The interop and compliance is only a bonus of the test suites and is not a goal of the test suites.

No it is not. The goal of the test suites is to improve interop.  To
help encourage this, tests are required for various W3C publishing
milestones, but that is a secondary and less important part of their
purpose.  Attempting to place W3C publishing requirements over helping
interop is a complete inversion of priorities which is not acceptable.

When necessary, we can obtain exceptions to W3C publishing
requirements; we can't obtain exceptions to interoperability.  Please
don't suggest things that stand a good chance of hurting interop;
making tests require invalid behavior is one of those things.

> This goal is important when you need to verify that specifications are ready to move to REC or provide the correct details for errata. Changing these 2.1 tests to match CSS-Syntax makes sections of CSS 2.1 unverified by tests.
>
> The test suites are checkpoints. They are locked to a particular spec version/level. If we were rewriting the @charset section of CSS 2.1 I would agree with the changes. However, we are not, we are working on CSS-Syntax and those tests need to be in CSS-Syntax and the CSS 2.1 tests need to be left alone as much as possible.
>
> As a brief history note the CSS 1.0 test cases have not been deleted they still stand as they were but there are many that have been moved to CSS 2.1 and superseded by newer CSS 2.1 tests. The only unfortunate this is we have not gone back and put notes in those CSS 1.0 tests. Here we have a chance to make things better for CSS 2.1 by adding in a note and link to the newer test.

"Making things better for CSS2.1" is a non-goal, except insofar as
some sections of 2.1 haven't yet been superceded, and so 2.1 is still
the definitive spec for those features.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 22:45:43 UTC

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