- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:40:08 -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 11:39, Peter Linss wrote: > On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:14 AM, James Graham wrote: >> 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? >> > > It's not so much to test a browser's behavior in both input formats, > but to make the suite available for clients that don't support one > format or the other. Clients which we needed to exit CR for CSS2.1 and > will likely need again for other specs. For example, some of the > implementations are offline XHTML to PDF converters or XHTML-Print > renderers embedded in printers. This is particularly true for > paged-media CSS features that are generally poorly supported in > browsers (but I'd be more than happy if we could rely on browsers to > pass those tests). So essentially all this complexity is to support non-web use cases? That seems unfortunate.
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 19:40:30 UTC