- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:10:11 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- cc: "public-html-testsuite@w3.org" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, David Carlisle wrote: > On 29/11/2010 18:14, Ian Hickson wrote: > > 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 > > yes sure, but I'd still think it useful that the eventual organisation > of the testsuite means it's easy for (say) an html5 parser > implementation to easily distinguish which tests apply to such non > rendering application, Agreed. > and more particularly for this thread, what's the feeling about mathml and svg > tests? The most agressively minimalist reading of the html5 spec is that they > should be parsed but don't need to be rendered. > which is fine, but not particularly useful to an end user. The intent of the spec is to not override any requirements in the SVG or MathML specs, so any requirements that those specifications have still apply. I don't recall off-hand if MathML has any specific requirements that apply to data analysis tools but not Web browsers (or vice versa). In HTML, the parser requirements explicitly apply to a number of conformance classes (like data mining tools) that are exempt from the rendering and user interactivity requirements. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 29 November 2010 22:10:41 UTC