- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:06:55 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Chris Lilley wrote: > > IH> In general I would recommend going through the SVG 1.2 spec with a > IH> fine tooth comb making sure conformance criteria are actually > IH> conformance criteria. At the moment, much of the spec is actually > IH> untestable due to poor phraseology. For example, "A value of zero > IH> disables rendering of the element" is not technically testable, as > IH> it is not strictly a conformance criteria; at least not per section > IH> D.2 as I understand it. > > I see your point, although I think that 'every sentence which does not > contain the word 'must' is not testable' goes too far. Oh I didn't mean to imply that. It's just that every statement, to be testable, has to be normatively traceable to a statement to the effect that an implementation has to act as described to be conformant. The definition of the word "MUST" does this, as does a statement like "to conform to this specification, user agents have to follow the following steps: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...". > Also, you seem to imply that only the part of the spec in the > conformance appendix s testable, which I suspect is not what you meant. I don't mean to imply anything. I said what I meant, no less and no more. > We do in fact have a test for the value of zero in the forthcoming test > suite already. What I meant by "untestable" is that if a UA acts contrary to that statement, it's still technically compliant. There's nothing to test: UAs are going to be compliant whatever they do with respect to the statement. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2005 22:07:15 UTC