- From: James Hopkins <james@idreamincode.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:56:36 +0000
- To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 19 Feb 2009, at 17:30, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> James Hopkins wrote:
>> Just to put my own curiosity to rest, are Unicode characters
>> implemented as sets, as opposed to individually? This was why I asked
>> the question originally, since it seems a bit nonsensical to me to
>> construct a test case for each Unicode character if they're
>> implemented in sets.
>
> Well it probably depends on the implementer.
Thanks for the clarification; my original suggestion of test case
aggregation was based on the assumption that implementors used
character sets, not implementing one by one (which seems a fairly long-
winded process to me, but hey, I'm not an implementor :))
> For us we group the characters as much as we can when we handle
> character situations like this. The cases however are written for
> all implementers and I can't make any assumptions on how others may
> implement the characters. When you create individual cases for each
> specific character you have no chance of missing a case because of
> implementation.
>
>>
>> I've based the example below of the current test case for 'Descendant
>> elements and 'display:none''
>> (http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/css/chapter_9/rules/dec
>> endant-display-none-001.htm):-
>>
>> div{
>> width: 1in;
>> height: 1in;
>> background:green;
>> }
>>
>> div div{
>> display:none;
>> }
>>
>> div div div{
>> background:red;
>> height:100%;
>> width:100%;
>> }
>>
>
> I'll take a look at this and see what I can do. Most likely this
> case won't have a simple solution but I see your point and I will
> attempt a few different solutions.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Arron Eicholz
>
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 15:57:35 UTC