- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:51:37 +0900
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On 2014/08/28 18:59, Richard Ishida wrote: > On 28/08/2014 10:25, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> On 2014/08/24 01:39, Richard Ishida wrote: >>> There is another results page at >>> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repository/encoding/indexes/results-indexes >>> Those of you who saw that page before should note that the results are >>> now slightly different. I haven't tracked down the cause, but I suspect >>> that silent codepoint changes in my editor were to blame for the initial >>> discrepancies. The differences between your earlier version of the tests and your later version of the tests can be explained that way. >> I have tried to find such a case. I found that for windows-1253, my >> tests give "expected "U+FFFD" but got "ª" (U+00AA)" for 0xAA, but Chrome >> is listed green for windows-1253 (incl. aliases) at >> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/repository/encoding/indexes/results-aliases. >> >> My version of Chrome is "37.0.2062.94 m". I also found 8 errors for my >> tests on windows-874. This difference (i.e. between my tests and your later version of the tests) still remains unexplained. >> Maybe I should go as far as suggesting >> to not use *any* editor for tests like these, because one never can be >> sure. The tests have to use the actual codepoints, even in the C0 range >> (except for 0x00 and 0x0D, which aren't testable). > > Yes. See above where I mention that I generate the crucial bit > automatically. If that's the case, why do we have differences in the test results? I have absolutely no problem if somebody points out that there is a bug in my tests or my test script (cross-checking is always valuable), but I think it's a very bad idea to dismiss http://www.w3.org/International/docs/encoding/encoding-doc.html#issue-371 / https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26618 with "RESOLVED". I have therefore reopened that bug. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 10:52:17 UTC