W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Scrollbars, olive color, maximum viewport width

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:00:07 -0800
Message-ID: <4B22EB17.8070808@inkedblade.net>
To: css21testsuite@gtalbot.org
CC: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Gérard Talbot wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> 1- Scrollbar(s) versus scrolling mechanism
> 
> In test
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_11/overflow-scrollbar-001.xht
> 
> it is written:
> 
> "
> PREREQUISITE: User agent needs to support scrollbars as the scrolling
> mechanism. If it does not then this test case does not apply to this
> user agent.
> "
> 
> but in CSS 2.1 Conformance Test Suite
> Uncommon Assumptions
> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/#uncommon
> it is written:
> 
> "
> The device is interactive and uses scroll bars.
> "
> 
> so the PREREQUISITE text can be removed.

Ideally, the tests should not rely on the Uncommon Assumptions, and if they
do, that should be indicated in the test. They are stated up front mainly
because we have a number of old tests that rely on these assumptions and
do not identify the assumptions they make in the test itself. Otherwise,
I would like to get rid of as many Uncommon Assumptions as we can.

> Some other tests (eg
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_11/overflow-ancestors-001.xht
> ) mention "active scrolling mechanism" instead of scrollbar.
> 
> I am working on tests which involve overflow, scrolling, scrollbars,
> etc. and I wonder if we should not standardize the wording regarding
> scrolling.

That's probably a good idea. Do you have some recommendations?

> Why it should be required to speak of active and visible scrollbar(s)
> (or scrolling mechanism) when referring to test involving possible
> scrolling?

In that test, it's probably because it's possible to have a visible
but disabled scrollbar.

> Active and inactive: should we use such distinction? I think so. At
> least, when the test may involve scrollbar and/or scrolling and is being
> tested.
> 
> Speaking of visible scrollbar is not useful since its opposite
> (invisible scrollbar) is not useful in a test.

Some UAs might have a scrolling mechanism that is not visible.

> Which scrollbar? horizontal scrollbar, vertical scrollbar, scrollbars. I
> think when suitable, test result should identify which scrollbar(s).

Makes sense.

> Finally, (nitpick) scrollbar should be an one word; not "scroll bar".

Agreed. :)

> 2- olive as a named color keyword
> 
> CSS 2.1 Conformance Test Suite
> Common Assumptions
> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/#common
> says
> 
> "
> The device can display the sixteen color values associated with the
> color keywords black, white, gray, silver, red, green, blue, purple,
> yellow, orange, teal, fuchsia, maroon, navy, aqua, and lime as distinct
> colors.
> "
> 
> but olive is a named [reserved] color keyword and there are 17 of them,
> not 16.

Hmmm, I think that's because we don't use olive in any of the tests
(except the test for olive). :) If you think olive is useful as a
general color for various bits of test, then I can add it to the
list.

> 3- Maximum viewport width?
> 
> There is a minimum viewport width.
> 
> "The device has a viewport width of at least 640px (approx)."
> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/#uncommon
> 
> Should there be a maximum viewport width assumed?
> Thanks to Hilbrand Edskes, I realized that some tests involving
> overflowing document width box may fail if browser window is maximized
> and if the implicit maximum window viewport width is assumed to be under
> 2000px.

Hmm, that's a good point. I think our tests should be written to
work on the widest range of devices possible. That said, we do
need to assume some minimum and maximum range. I will ask some
mobile people what is a good minimum assumption for the Common
Assumptions. What would you recommend as a good maximum? (Something
that will still be valid in 6 years. ;)

The >640px assumption is imho inappropriately large; it wouldn't
work on most mobile devices, for example. It's listed there because,
again, some old tests in the test suite are written to assume it and
don't say so... if you find any, we should update them.

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 01:00:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:52:01 GMT