- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:16:09 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, David Carlisle wrote: > > Yes I agree really, I was just explaining how they validated here in the > absence of those declarations. Ah, ok. :-) Cool. > Those are presumably not conformant implementations, though, so why would > the test suite have workarounds for them? > > I would not agree with adding anything to the test suite that made the > files non conformant but we wanted to use the test suite to test the > current implementations and without that PI that isn't possible. But were those implementations then used to exit CR? > Unfortunately they don't have the reference image, which is required to > know if the UA is implementing the result correctly or not. > > True, but the xhtml+mathml files that do have the image also have > explict namespace declarations. Yes; my point was they also have a lot more. For QA purposes, the ideal test is one that has nothing but the test and the pass criteria; the current XHTML tests have lots of other stuff that is distracting. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2004 09:17:02 UTC