W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > October 2007

Re: page-break-after proposed tests

From: Michael Turnwall <mturnwall@revenution.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:54:32 -0700
Message-Id: <C477460C-4DD2-4F76-8DD1-CC2138DF5F30@revenution.com>
To: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Edits have been made.


Michael Turnwall
mturnwall@revenution.com
www.revenution.com



On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:25 AM, fantasai wrote:

>
> Sorry for taking so long to get to the review; I was out of
> the country for most of this month.
>
> First comment: These files should all be .xht, as they are
> XHTML and must be served as such, not as text/html.
>
> > page-break-after: always
> > http://www.revenutiontesting.com/w3c/page_breaks/t130301-page- 
> break-after-always-01-a.html
>
> Two comments:
>   - The second div shouldn't be marked as dummy text anymore.
>   - The first paragraph should say something about there being
>     a sentence after the page break: if the UA breaks correctly
>     but only prints the first page, that needs to be a fail.
>
> One nit:
>   - Add a space between 'page-break-after:' and 'always' in the  
> <title>
>
> > page-break-after: auto
> > http://www.revenutiontesting.com/w3c/page_breaks/t130301-page- 
> break-after-auto-02-a.html
>
> I suggest changing the dummy text to read "This sentence must be
> on the first page." (and making it non-dummy text)
>
> > page-break-after: (invalid syntax)
> > http://www.revenutiontesting.com/w3c/page_breaks/t130301-page- 
> break-after-invalid-syntax-15-a.html
>
> This test is incorrect.
>   - The first paragraph should say that there *must* be a page  
> break after it.
>   - Either
>       a) the first style declaration rule for the second paragraph  
> should say
>            page-break-after: auto;
>          instead of
>            page-break-after: always;
>       OR
>       b) the second paragraph should say that there must be a page  
> break
>          after it.
>
> BTW, did you run your tests in Prince to see if they pass? Because  
> this
> one, as written, should have failed.
>
> > page-break-after: (inline elements)
> > http://www.revenutiontesting.com/w3c/page_breaks/t130301-page- 
> break-after-inline-elements-16-a.html
>
> Same comments as for t130301-page-break-after-auto-02-a.html,  
> otherwise
> it looks good.
>
> > page-break-after: (no inherit)
> > http://www.revenutiontesting.com/w3c/page_breaks/t130301-page- 
> break-after-no-inherit-17-a.html
>
> Looks good.
>
> ~fantasai
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 06:54:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:51:55 GMT