W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > November 2010

Re: choice of javascript DOM methods suitable for use in tests

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
cc: Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, "public-html-testsuite@w3.org" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1011291808140.11018@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, David Carlisle wrote:
> 
> Also for HTML elements the first line of section 12 is
> 
> "User agents are not required to present HTML documents in any 
> particular way."
> 
> So there are no normative rendering requirements on any part of html, 
> however user expectation would be, I believe, that a system claiming 
> 100% test suite conformance did in fact render HTML5, including SVG and 
> MathML.

For the purposes of the test suite, I think it would be reasonable to 
create a set of tests that assume that the implementations are attempting 
to implement the "expected" rendering described in the rendering section. 
In particular, I would expect that all the browser implementations we test 
that have a chance of reaching 100% compliance first will be in that 
category, so for the purposes of moving us past CR that should be fine.

Which is to say, for the purposes of the test suite I would just treat the 
"expected to" terminology in the rendering section as having the strength 
of RFC2119 MUST statements.

HTH,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 29 November 2010 18:15:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:37 UTC