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

Re: CSS Namespaces Module Test Suite

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:37:54 +0100
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uor5lgp664w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:28:54 +0100, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> [syntax-013.xml]
> Mm, these tests don't require scripting, and they're at the same
> level as your EOF test.
>    <style>
>     @namespace "fail;
>     ; t3 { background: lime }
>    </style>
>    <style>
>     @namespace url('fail);
>     t4 { background: red; }
>     );
>     t4 { background: lime; }
>    </style>
> with
>    <p><t3>This sentence should have a green background.</t3></p>
>    <p><t4>This sentence should have a green background.</t4></p>
> should do it. Add it if you think these are correct. If consider them
> out-of-scope, then the EOF test there should also be removed.

Ah, unexpected end of string can of course be tested in this way. t4 is  
particularly evil and breaks Firefox and Opera. :-) (Latest Firefox seems  
to have fixed t2.)


>>> You probably also want the "test-wrong" declaration to have some
>>> testable effect.
>>  Done.
> What I meant was the declaration in that location should have an
> effect so it's known that it's not thrown out because of its location,
> but is kept. Right now it's overridden by @namespace "test", so you
> can't tell if the UA threw it out (which it should not do) or simply
> overwrote it (which it should). So I would suggest making one of these
> declarations (or both) use a prefix so that they are both kept.

I guess overwriting is tested elsewhere already, ok, changed.

>>> Ok. Since syntax-006.xml is an invalid test, I've flagged it as  
>>> invalid.
>>  Does the invalid flag apply to tests using invalid CSS?
> Yes.

Ok, marked scope-001, syntax-013 and syntax-014 as well. Pending the  
answer to my question on www-style more tests might need to be marked.

>>> Also made the title a bit clearer. Please review these changes:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/CSS/css3-namespace-test-suite/src/syntax-006.xml.diff?r1=1.2&r2=1.3&sortby=file
> Can I get an r+/- here?

Yup, it's fine.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 14:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:18 UTC