The "acid" test is not specific enough (not "unit" testing) + fails with typical stylesheet overrides from reading system "user agent" and/or user formatting preferences

[w3c]

The "acid" test is not specific enough (not "unit" testing) + fails with typical stylesheet overrides from reading system "user agent" and/or user formatting preferences

[dauwhe]

My recommendation would be to eliminate the Acid test from this test suite.

I'm fine with that. As I mentioned, it was one way of showing that an RS supports "a lot" of CSS, but it is a strange test (and had to be edited to be XHTML, etc.)

[danielweck]

CC @llemeurfr @gautierchomel

[iherman]

cc @dauwhe @dlazin

[iherman]

I have created a PR to do so (#167).

However, we have now a MUST statement on being conform to CSS that has now corresponding test (actually, we have the statement twice: one in the introductory statement in the paragraph and then one in the core text of §6.3. This contradicts to the requirement for having a test for each MUST statement. I am not sure whether this is a problem and what we should put there instead.

(Almost all our tests use CSS in some way. One could argue that CSS support is amply shown through the test suite... but maybe removing the first bullet item, which is a repetition of what is said in the yellow banner, makes things a big cleaner. This is reminiscent on the discussion in w3c/epub-specs#2330)

cc @dlazin @mattgarrish

[dlazin]

I agree with removing this; I have similar thoughts, but haven't found time to create a replacement test. Note that I think it's fine to use a basic test for two different normative statements, if it reasonably tests the same things; not as good as having unique tests, but IMO fine. I don't think there's a meaningful difference between "you must support rendering CSS" and "you must support CSS as defined in the CSS spec"; one basic test seems sufficient to me.

[iherman]

one basic test seems sufficient to me.

me too. But, with the removal of this test, there is no test for the statements in §6.3. Even if we decide to remove the bullet item:

MUST support the official definition of CSS as described in the [csssnapshot].

(which I would agree with), we may still to either have, or assign another test, for the statement in the intro part of the section, i.e.,

If a reading system has a viewport, it MUST support the visual rendering of XHTML content documents via CSS [epub-33].

So far, the acid test was used for both.