W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2013

RE: [CSS21] Reviews and tests needed for errata (s.15.3a: font name “inherit”)

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:26:49 +0000
To: "www-style@gtalbot.org" <www-style@gtalbot.org>, Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
CC: www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ac056c20c67f4fad820a461a39dd6fdc@BLUPR03MB602.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Monday, July 29, 2013 7:04 PM Gérard Talbot wrote:
> Le Lun 29 juillet 2013 20:28, Rebecca Hauck a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> >>From last week's telecon, ACTION-571 [1] -
> >
> > I've assessed the work that needs to be done in the test suites to get
> > ready for republishing. There are approximately 240 existing tests for
> > the
> > 22 items listed in the errata.  With some advanced searching in
> > Shepherd, I was able to identify which have no tests and which have
> > pertinent tests that may (need to be) modified to accurately reflect
> > the new language in the spec.  Details all on the wiki [2] - see "CSS
> > 2.1 Errata."  Note that the Shepherd queries there are filtered within
> > each spec section to be as relevant possible to the changes described
> > in the errata and in the corresponding minutes.
> >
> > Please let me know if you are familiar with any of these items and
> > have time to review or write tests associated with them.  I've not
> > gone through this process before, so I'd be interested to hear how the
> > work required has been assigned and completed in the past. Just as a
> > data point, and as a logical start to addressing these, I added names
> > of people who proposed the change and who are listed as Owners of the
> tests.
> >
> > I'm happy to manage and track this process and will use this wiki &
> > Shepherd to do so.  I'd like continue this discussion at the upcoming
> > telecon to solicit help from WG members on these items.
> >
> > Let me know if I missed anything or if you have questions.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Rebecca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/actions/571

> > [2] http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1

> >
> 
> The only and sole test that needs to be reviewed and approved for s.15.3a
> (clarification) has to be:
> 
> [src]
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/font-family-

> rule-004a.xht
> 
> [nightly-unstable]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-rule-

> 004a.htm
> 
> since it checks 9 ways of declaring font-family with inherit (with and without
> quotes).
> 
> Also, it would be best if the current
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-rule-

> 004.htm
> 
> would be removed and replaced with
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-rule-

> 004a.htm
> 

While I agree that font-family-rule-004a is a better test in general it is not testing the specific scenario that is in the 004 case. Both are still necessary at the moment because the 004 case tests that a font named inherit can actually be loaded and used if quoted.

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz


Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 17:29:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:32 UTC