W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [CSS 2.1] cases that do not pass in any browser

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:29:30 -0700
Message-ID: <4C69D7EA.600@inkedblade.net>
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, 'Richard Ishida' <ishida@w3.org>
On 08/02/2010 03:34 PM, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> Still needing review:
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/quotes-036.htm
> Cases still needing fixes from owners:
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/direction-unicode-bidi-013.htm
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/direction-unicode-bidi-014.htm
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/direction-unicode-bidi-016.htm
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/direction-unicode-bidi-017.htm
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/direction-unicode-bidi-022.htm
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/direction-unicode-bidi-026.htm
> Image used as reference is using different font and it cannot be easily
> determined if the case passes.

I've switched the tests to use a serif font, so that they will match more closely.

> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/css2.1/selectors/first-line-floats-002.htm
> :first-line does not apply to block-level descendants that are floats.

This one probably needs CSSWG judgement. I don't think it's incorrect per spec,
though I will admit the spec isn't totally clear on this point.

> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/text-transform-bicameral-004.htm

Richard, can you please look this one over? The original comments on these testcases
are from Gérard Talbot, see

 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/text-transform-bicameral-005.htm
 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/text-transform-bicameral-006.htm

I don't think these are wrong. The UA is supposed to use locale-specific transformation
rules when language information is available.
   # The actual transformation in each case is written language dependent.

> I think we should just remove these cases, any objections?:
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/margin-collapse-144.htm
> This test assumes that http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2003AprJun/0347.html
> is accepted and it was not.
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/margin-collapse-149.htm
> Same reason as margin-collapse-144.
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/margin-collapse-150.htm
> This test assumes that http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2003AprJun/0446.html
> is accepted and it was not.
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/margin-collapse-167.htm
> This case is not calculating the position of a box, with adjacent top and bottom margins,
> correctly. #parent should be positioned at 4em since one of its adjoining child margins
> has margin-top:4em.
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/margin-collapse-168.htm
> Box 1 – invalid ...

I think it's better to update the controls on these testcases than to remove them

> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/margin-collapse-clear-005.htm
> Per spec, “Computing the clearance of an element on which 'clear' is set
> is done by first determining the hypothetical position of the element's
> top border edge within its parent block. This position is determined
> after the top margin of the element has been collapsed with previous
> adjacent margins (including the top margin of the parent block).” This
> means that we need to determine the hypothetical position of box C when
> it is collapsed with its parent. This causes it to be at the
> hypothetical position of 0 and, thus, requires it to be cleared.
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/margin-collapse-clear-011.htm
> Same as margin-collapse-clear-005

These two testcases are correct. If they conflict with the spec, the spec
is wrong, as these cases that were used in the discussion of a CSS2.1 Issue
to determine that the spec needed an update. (They are the reason item #2 of
the "it's clearance must be set to the greater of" bit was added to the spec.)

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 00:30:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:20 UTC