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

RE: [RC3] Problems with absolute-non-replaced-max-height-002

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 02:26:55 +0000
To: "css21testsuite@gtalbot.org" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <07349ECFC3608F48BC3B10459913E70B102F82C1@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:19 PM Gérard Talbot wrote:
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/absolute-non-replaced-
> max-height-002.htm
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/xhtml1/absolute-non-
> replaced-max-height-002.xht
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_10
> /absolute-non-replaced-max-height-002.xht
> 
> 1-
> <meta name="assert" content="The used value for absolutely positioned
> elements shrinks-to-fit height.">
> 
> Shrinks to fit is for width. There is no shrinks-to-fit height notion or concept in
> the CSS 2.1. CSS 2.1 refers to "height is based on the content" or "based on
> the content". Careful readers and beginners will be confused by this
> "shrinks-to-fit height"
> 
> Suggested replacement:
> <meta name="assert" content="When 'top', 'height', and 'bottom' of an
> absolutely positioned element are 'auto', then set 'top' to the static position
> and make 'height' based on the content; such height may be constrained by a
> given 'max-height' value.">
> 
> 2-
> <meta name="assert" content="The used value for absolutely positioned
> elements shrinks-to-fit height.">
> 
> The testcase is definitely about constraining the calculated height to satisfy a
> max-height value. The assert makes no mention of this.
> 
> 3-
>             div div
>             {
>                 background: blue;
>                 bottom: auto;
>                 font: 1in/1em ahem;
>                 height: auto;
>                 margin-bottom: auto;
>                 margin-top: auto;
>                 max-height: 0.5in;
>                 position: absolute;
>                 top: auto;
>             }
> 
> 
> "
> If all three of 'top', 'height', and 'bottom' are auto, set 'top' to the static
> position and apply rule number three below.
> (...)
>    3. 'height' and 'bottom' are 'auto' and 'top' is not 'auto', then the height is
> based on the content, set 'auto' values for 'margin-top'
> and 'margin-bottom' to 0, and solve for 'bottom'
> "
> 
> So, height must be based on content and then max-height must constrained
> such height-based-on-content value.
> 
> The thing is that if max-height is applied, then the blue painted area is in the
> upper-left corner. If max-height is *NOT* applied, then the blue painted
> area is still in the upper-left corner.
> So the pass condition of the testcase is not sufficient; the pass condition of
> the testcase is too laxist, lenient. If max-height is applied or if max-height is
> not applied, the testcase still passes nevertheless.
> An update to the test assert will not be sufficient here; the testcase needs to
> be reworked.
> 
> 4- "in the upper-left corner": refers to a position relative to the containing
> block. "in the upper-left corner" does not refer to a defined, specified or
> constrained dimension.
> 

Fixed

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:27:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 December 2010 02:27:42 GMT