- From: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:26:15 -0700
- To: Frédéric Wang <fwang@igalia.com>
- Cc: public-mathml4@w3.org
Received on Monday, 5 August 2019 17:26:48 UTC
> > there is also the original mathml test suite at W3C of course. > > > Right, I can use it too although my preference would be for "concrete" > content rather than tests > > Real world examples will give you realistic speed comparisons and help with robustness, but a test suite will be much better at testing robustness and correctness of your implementation and any polyfills. The collections, especially if they are generated from TeX, won't test whole categories of functionality. E.g,. mpadded, mphantom, or stretchy min/max may not be part of the output of the converters. Having said that, the MathML test suite is a disaster in terms of being focused -- lots of people contributed tests so there is a ton of overlap in what is tested. Still, it does ASFAIK cover all element and all attributes and includes some tests that were meant to challenge implementations in terms of size of expression and speed of MathML rendering (see Torture Tests section). I was pleased to see that Firefox does a pretty good job for many of these Torture tests, especially speed-wise, when I just checked. Neil Soiffer
Received on Monday, 5 August 2019 17:26:48 UTC