W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2006

RE: possible bug in t100801-c42-ibx-ht-00-d-a.xht

From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:23:15 -0700
Message-ID: <40CE68F1F8CAFB48B998C328517EA92AFCB20A@namail2.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>


Line-height is really quite irrelevant here (well, it is relevant for
the test, but I do not question line-height calculations in this test -
they *are* correct). What is incorrect in this test is that it makes an
assumption on where the border of the inline element should occur (it
relies on the border exactly overlapping red characters in the previous
line). Border location in the vertical direction depends on the
dimensions of the content area of the element and the height of the
inline element content area is explicitly left undefined in the current
draft of CSS 2.1 (section 10.6.1).


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:14 AM
To: Peter Sorotokin
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Subject: RE: possible bug in t100801-c42-ibx-ht-00-d-a.xht

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Peter Sorotokin wrote:
> Correct me, if my reasoning is wrong. This is what CSS default for
> line-height is (section 10.8.1):

The test doesn't use the default value for line-height; on the <div> 
element's anonymous inline box children the line-height value is 12px,
the <em> element inline boxes the line-height is 10px, and on the <span>

element inline boxes the line-height is 12px.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 17:23:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:16 UTC