W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > July 2008

RE: CSS2.1 i18n and bidi tests for review

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:09:33 +0100
To: "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>, "'Eira Monstad'" <eiram@opera.com>, "'Bert Bos'" <bert@w3.org>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001c01c8ecb4$96e15f80$c4a41e80$@org>

I'm just tweaking the XHTML 1.1 tests a little more...

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org]
> Sent: 22 July 2008 20:30
> To: 'Eira Monstad'; 'Bert Bos'; 'fantasai'
> Cc: 'public-css-testsuite@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: CSS2.1 i18n and bidi tests for review
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Quite by coincidence I had been working on an update to these tests and
their
> results on the i18n site.  I have updated the format and made a few small
> corrections.  I also added some tests related to script tags in RFC 4646
(BCP 47),
> and tidied up the tests related to xml:lang so that they test whether a UA
uses
> lang related selector values with xml:lang attribute values when the
document is
> text/html (they don't).
> 
> Today I extended the tests to cover XML 1.1 served as XML, using xml:lang
with
> an escape (couldn't get xml|lang to work).
> 
> I haven't publicly announced the new versions yet, but they can be found
at
> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/test-css-lang-1 (and -2 to -6) and
the first
> set of results at
http://www.w3.org/International/tests/results/results-css-lang
> 
> Wrt the CSS tests, the files are served as XHTML 1.1 but the assertion
says "lang
> attribute selector with att=val in HTML...".  Is this what was intended or
should the
> assertion say XHTML?  Note that the lang attribute is not part of XHTML
1.1,
> which is why the pages don't validate.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> RI
> 
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://rishida.net/
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eira Monstad [mailto:eiram@opera.com]
> > Sent: 05 July 2008 23:08
> > To: Bert Bos; fantasai
> > Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org; 'Richard Ishida'
> > Subject: Re: CSS2.1 i18n and bidi tests for review
> >
> > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:30:04 +0200, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > > fantasai wrote:
> > >
> > >>
http://people.opera.com/eiram/test/css21/review/lang-pseudoclass-001.xht
> > >>
http://people.opera.com/eiram/test/css21/review/lang-pseudoclass-002.xht
> > >>   Same comments about background-color etc.. but I think we need
> > >>   a spec clarification here before I can review the content of
> > >>   the test. I would expect :lang to be case-insensitive because
> > >>   the language codes are... But that's not specified in the spec,
> > >>   so.. I guess I'll have to file an issue.
> > >
> > > Section 5.11.4 indeed doesn't say that the argument of ':lang()' is
> > > case-insensitive, but I don't think it should. The selector matches
> > > whatever the document defines to be its language, and although we hope
> > > and recommend that every document uses RFC 4646 (and the selector
> > > clearly works best if it does), we don't require that.
> > >
> > > This test case uses HTML and HTTP, which do use that RFC, and thus the
> > > language codes in this test case are indeed case-insensitive.
> > >
> > > I think it is correct to test for that, because CSS says (4.1.3) that
it
> > > defers to the document for the case-sensitivity of text that comes
from
> > > the document. I.e., a CSS UA that fails this test case is indeed
> > > non-conforming.
> >
> > I agree. I spent some time tracking down justifications for either
> > interpretation before deciding to test for this, but ended up with the
> > same conclusion, defer to document. I also discussed briefly with Hixie,
> > who agrees too.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eira Monstad
> > CoreQA
> >
> > Furthermore, it is my opinion that BTS2 must be destroyed
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:10:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:51:56 GMT