- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 11:14:34 -0700
- To: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
- Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>, Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>, <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On 2013-08-06 11:02, Peter Linss wrote: > On Aug 5, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> 2) afaik vendors pull the repo directly when they wish to run the >> tests (rather then use the output of a build system). > not in HTML? > The output of the build system is still used for CSS tests, > historically (and currently to the best of my knowledge) people mostly > consume the build output of our test suites, not the source. And FWIW, > there are other people who run tests aside from vendors. > > The build system isn't something the CSSWG can throw away at this > point. We use it for test format conversions, many of our test suites > are contributed in a mix of XHTML and HTML, and we need the full > suites in both HTML and XHTML formats, we've also relied on > XHTML-Print. In addition, the build system produces manifest files and > human readable test suite indexes, which are also being used. Where does the requirement to have the full suite in multiple formats come from? It seems unlikely that the CSS layer in browsers would depend on the parser that was originally used. Do you have examples of tests that found bugs when run in XML but not in HTML?
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 18:15:02 UTC