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

Re: [CSS21] Reviews and tests needed for errata

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:08:46 -0700
To: "www-style@gtalbot.org" <www-style@gtalbot.org>
CC: www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE1D940D.3991E%rhauck@adobe.com>
Thanks for your feedback, Gérard.

On 7/29/13 6:51 PM, ""Gérard Talbot"" <www-style@gtalbot.org> 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
>> 22 items listed in the errata.  With some advanced searching in
>> I was able to identify which have no tests and which have pertinent
>> 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
>> the Shepherd queries there are filtered within each spec section to be
>> 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
>> this process before, so I'd be interested to hear how the work required
>> has been assigned and completed in the past.
>I wish I could help here.
>> Just as a data point, and as
>> a logical start to addressing these, I added names of people who
>> 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
>I submitted this test
>which is based on:
>Issue 172: table-caption content overflows
>[CSS21] table-caption width
>and such test has *not* been reviewed or approved yet:
>and the CSS2.1 spec has not been formally clarified yet.
>The Errata
>makes no mention of issue 172 or of
>Overall, the Errata
>often seems to me to be precise editorial tuning. On the other hand, some
>spec-related issues I brought, backed up by tests, are still not addressed
>in such errata.
>[CSS21] Overconstrained fixed table layout
>list 9 non-reviewed-yet tests.

I suppose those outstanding issues have yet to go through the discussion
and proposal process as the items listed in the errata did.  This exercise
is about mapping tests to those items already agreed upon in the errata,
not necessarily for adding new items.  That said though, the other action
item related to this was for Anton and fantasai to review the errata [1],
so they may also take these things into consideration.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/actions/570
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 23:07:35 UTC

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