2008/6/12 <>:
> "Peter Dolding" <> wrote on 06/12/2008 07:49:30 AM:
>> Its a simple technical reason. W3C CSS2 test suite is harder to use
>> compared Acid test. Anyone with even basic skills can point there
>> browser to the Acid Test and see result. More experience is need to
>> use CSS2 test suite and the like. Note the W3C test suites are older
>> than the Acid Test. Acid Test make problems more displayed.
> OK. So reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that one of
> the important goals of an Acid-type test would be that it can be run by
> anyone -- end users, journalists, i.e., non-geeks. They don't need to first
> download and install a JDK, ant, and a dozen XML tools first. They just
> load the document in their editor and see how it looks.
And (me also reading between the lines), these LSD tests are also automated?
Could be a contradiction there.
I've put a stupidly simple definition of a 'tester' on the google site.
I'd love anyone to run a test suite. It's more likely to be a geek though.
Even if he does have to follow a dumb install document first.
But we may also
> have another set of tests (I've been calling them 'atomic tests') that are
> targeted to vendors and testing labs.
+1, if an atomic test tests all or part of one para in ODF standard.
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
