- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:01:00 -0400
- To: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
Also I see that the code that validates the XHTML uses a <location>line, col</location> syntax. Mind if I update this too? I think we need to get these details straightened out before we start writing tests in earnest. Sean On 6/28/07, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote: > Thoughts on this? I'd like to modify the <location> element naming to > be consistent with the result document naming. > > I also believe we need to keep test-specific results out of the > intermediate doc - this "styleSheetSupport" element needs to be part > of the results instead of intermediate document I think. > > On 6/26/07, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote: > > This is good stuff -- I have two comments on the result format. > > > > First would it be more desirable to re-use the <position> tag syntax > > that we conceived for the result document? this presents a similar, > > but different tag called <location>. We also used <info> rather than > > <description> in the results document. > > > > I remain a little concerned that the line between the "preprocessing" > > and "tests" is becoming blurred and the result will be difficult to > > comprehend. It makes sense to produce an intermediate document that > > records the result of accessing a CSS resource and even parsing it. > > > > Here I think we've gone a step beyond that and put mobileOK > > Basic-specific information into this document -- that is, which > > properties in the stylesheet aren't allowed by mobileOK Basic. > > > > I think this logic should be implemented only in the test and > > presented in the results document. Thoughts? > > > > On 6/26/07, Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Although code in CVS is being updating with the new test format, we have > > > committed > > > > > > some changes related to our CSS action. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *We have introduced stylesheet block. So far this stylesheet tag can be > > > built from > > > > > > linked or embedded CSS Resources. In both cases W3CValidator will process > > > any > > > > > > @import rule found (But we lose the retrieval information of imported CSS). > > > So there will be > > > > > > an stylesheet block per top level CSS resource) > > > > > > > > > > > > *CSS validity messages from W3CValidator tool are allocated inside a > > > CSSValidity block with > > > > > > the same structure used for grammar > > > validation.(error-location-description). > > > > > > > > > > > > *For each CSS test we have an special block with the information needed to > > > pass the test > > > > > > via XSLT. Currently we only have the information for Style Sheet Support > > > Test. > > > > > > > > > > > > To illustrate these changes see the following extract from moki document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <stylesheets> > > > > > > <stylesheet type="embedded"> > > > > > > > > > <URI>http://idi.fundacionctic.org/bk/google.xhtml</URI> > > > > > > <CSSValidity valid="false"> > > > > > > <error code="-1"> > > > > > > <location type="LineAndColumn">1, 0</location> > > > > > > <description>Property colo doesn't exist</description> > > > > > > </error> > > > > > > </CSSValidity> > > > > > > <stylesheetSupportTest> > > > > > > <error code="-1"> > > > > > > <location type="LineAndColumn">1, 0</location> > > > > > > <description>float:left</description> > > > > > > </error> > > > > > > </stylesheetSupportTest> > > > > > > </stylesheet> > > > > > > </stylesheets> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 20:01:17 UTC