Re: Encoding single-byte tests

On 01/09/2014 11:26, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2014/08/31 20:52, Richard Ishida wrote:
>> On 30/08/2014 11:20, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>> On the other hand, testing that the browser uses U+FFFD when the
>>> Encoding spec says so makes sense, and that's what I have done.
>> Yes, I agree it makes sense, thereby testing the decode algorithm rather
>> than just the index file information. I will update my tests, assertions
>> and results and hope to republish by tomorrow.
> Great.
> Please note that while for this test, we have to include testing some
> part of the decoding algorithm, the reason why I was doing that wasn't
> so much to test the decoding algorithm itself (we are very far from
> doing anything coming close to a comprehensive test for that), but in
> fact the index file information, in particular the absence of a line for
> certain byte values.
> If we don't do this, we could have an empty index file (even if just by
> chance or by accident) and the tests would all be green but the test
> result would be completely misleading.

The tests and results have been updated to check what happens if there 
is no line for a pointer in the index file. According to the single-byte 
decoding algorithm, this should produce U+FFD. See the updated results at

I have tried to indicate, where the pass is only partial, how many 
errors were due to U+FFF not being served, vs. how many were due to 
unexpected characters being served that are not those in the tables. I 
did that in the summary. For details, open the test in the relevant 
browser (by clicking on the link to the left of the row). See for example

The main differences are for windows-1253 and windows-874 and 
Chrome/Safari/Opera, but also 6 more IE boxes turned orange.


Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 12:21:10 UTC