- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:24:26 +0900
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
> On Apr 12, 2016, at 02:56, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > On 04/11/2016 03:55 AM, ishida@w3.org wrote: >> On 11/04/2016 01:56, Florian Rivoal wrote: >>> Works for me. The only point I am not 100% sure about is putting the assertion/explanation in the title, as I think people >>> have expectations that a title should be a few words, rather than one or two full sentences, and I worry a bit that this set >>> up will give us under-described tests. >> >> I very much agree. I think that assertions in the title will become a very unwieldy in many cases (eg. where you have to say >> "If such-and-such, then so-and-so will happen."), and lead to unhelpful brevity in others. >> >> For me the assert field is a top priority. >> >> I find the titles useful to give a quick idea of the intent of the test (see for example the distinction at >> https://www.w3.org/International/tests/repo/results/the-lang-attribute). But i wonder whether we can make the title optional >> - if needed, but missing, it may be possible to use the file name as the title. > > That was my intention when we drew up the metadata documentation, > but it seems that a lot of people find the metadata confusing to > write and are annoyed at the amount of markup it requires. And > I can't say I blame them; there's enough that even I can't write > a new test off the top of my head if I haven't looked things up > recently enough. > > <title> tags are structurally simple. They're also required for > the HTML to be valid, so we have to have one anyway. > https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-head-element > > If we'd like to make a distinction between a "title" and a longer > "description", then maybe we can adopt a convention similar to > commit messages: the first line, if it stands alone, is the title, > and the rest is the description. I am not interested in making a distinction between a short title and a complete description. I only want the complete description, and worry we won't get it if we call it title. > I'd rather keep the metadata and its markup as simple as possible. > It should be easy to write a new test from a blank page once you've > written 2-3. It should therefore require as little typing and > memorization as possible; and <meta> tags don't facilitate this at > all because they're noisy. I agree with that goal to, and I am not quite sure what to do about the tension between these two positions. What you suggest is probably the way forward, but it still feels a bit wrong. Titles are mandatory, and we don't care about titles, but we care about something else, so let's just stuff it in the title. I can live with it, but it rubs me the wrong way. - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 01:24:53 UTC