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

Re: Microsoft contributing test cases to the CSS WG

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:13:19 +0100
To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "w3c-css-wg@w3.org" <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Cc: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.t7j18hbf64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:26:05 +0100, Chris Wilson  
<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The test cases are published now at  
> http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/default.htm.

Awesome guys!

I went quite quickly through these tests (mostly by checking which failed  
in Opera 9.2x) and found some small issues:

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/Chapter_14/background-position-041.htm
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/Chapter_14/background-position-042.htm
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/Chapter_14/background-position-045.htm
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/Chapter_14/background-position-046.htm

are all invalid per CSS 2.1. The keyword needs to be on a specific side of  
the length/percentage per CSS 2.1.

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/Chapter_12/content-applies-to-001.htm

is valid per CSS 2.1 but CSS 3 allows this. It makes sense to not test  
such things in CSS 2.1 to me. For instance, we wouldn't test

   p::before { content: "FAIL" }

either because it's obvious that Selectors Level 3 endorses such a syntax.


Some tests have an unclear passing condition, but I haven't put references  
down for those. In general these looks pretty good though.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 18:13:49 GMT

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