- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:04:36 -0700
- To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: "W3C www-style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>, "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Le Mer 8 juin 2011 6:30, Daniel Glazman a écrit : > Le 07/06/11 23:49, "Gérard Talbot" a écrit : > >> The fact that 9000 CSS tests have been submitted and that the fact the >> CSS >> 2.1 spec is official do not, by itself, make CSS coding entirely >> reliable, >> perfectly predictable in all browsers. > > And we never said CSS is entirely reliable or perfect. You perfectly > know the Test Suite is here to test the features in a spec written by > humans. To the best of our knowledge, the CSS 2.1 Test Suite tests > all features in the spec. Daniel, please visit this page: CSS 2.1 test suite: Known issues http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/issues and I assure you that such page is not completely updated right now. [Addendum: latest update: in my opinion, vertical-align-117 and vertical-align-118 are not really and not accurately testing what those testcases were originally aiming at testing. So, those 2 testcases should be upgraded, improved.] > It is just impossible to test *all* > interactions between *all* properties and *all* values in *all* > scenarios. The errata mode is here to cover the issues raised after REC > release. > > </Daniel> > -- > W3C CSS WG, Co-chair If you are unaware of a failure or unaware about a bad testcase or unaware about some interaction between a property and a value and a webpage scenario, then there is little you can do. I am not asking anyone to be omniscient. What about when a failure, a bad testcase or a precise interation or scenario is known, has been identified publicly, has been documented, has been explained, in some cases, has been discussed, etc? This is what I was talking about and why I mentioned http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/issues 2 examples. 1- On october 18th 2010, David Baron wrote http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0280.html saying that 12 testcases are invalid. Today, those same testcases (RC6 and in nightly-unstable) still have not been corrected accordingly. 2- On 7 Nov 2010, I explained in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Nov/0039.html that user agents can render a missing icon if the targeted image is not fetchable. Therefore, either the testcase http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/before-after-images-001.htm needed to be upgraded or corrected to reflect such reality in the spec and in some browsers. Today, that testcase still has not been corrected accordingly. I mentioned 50 invalid testcases: they all have been identified, explained. Fair and square. I mentioned 200 testcases requiring some code tuning, tweaking, corrections, improvements: they all have been identified. Sometimes as soon as fall 2010. Etc. Gérard Talbot -- CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Monday, 4 July 2011 20:05:07 UTC