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

RE: review of Microsoft CSS 2.1 font tests

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:52:38 +0000
To: "css21testsuite@gtalbot.org" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <07349ECFC3608F48BC3B10459913E70B1032067C@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:22 AM Gérard Talbot
> Le Mer 20 janvier 2010 7:20, John Daggett a écrit :
> > I went through and looked over the font tests submitted by Microsoft
> > for use with the CSS 2.1 Test Suite (Chapter 15)
> >
> > Current revision of these tests:
> > http://test.csswg.org/svn/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15/
> >
> > Annotated snapshot from last week:
> > http://people.mozilla.org/~jdaggett/csstests/microsoft/chapter15/
> >
> > The tests make use of a number of modified versions of the Ahem font,
> > found in the support directory:
> >
> > http://test.csswg.org/svn/contributors/microsoft/submitted/support/
> >
> > Individual tests note the need for a given font but I think it would
> > be better to note a required set of fonts more clearly, so that
> > testers don't need to dig into the tests to figure out what fonts are
> needed.
> >
> > The use of Ahem as a testing font is not always a good choice; several
> > of the tests rely on synthetic bolding and obliquing since Ahem is a
> > font family with a single, normal font face.  The use of a test font
> > family with regular, bold, italic and bold italic faces would be much
> > better for this purpose.
> >
> > font-003.xht
> > Text in test seems invalid.  Relies on synthetic small-caps, there is
> > no basis for asserting that a synthetic small-cap x is wider/taller
> > than a lowercase x.  The X/x letter is also a lousy test character
> > because it's capital and lowercase forms are very similar.  Using the
> > letter E/e would be better I think.
> >
> > font-applies-to-xxx
> > font-family-applies-to-xxx
> > font-size-applies-to-xxx
> > font-style-applies-to-xxx
> > font-variant-applies-to-xxx
> > font-weight-applies-to-xxx
> >
> > I don't quite understand the point of these tests, it seems to be
> > testing font properties to assure they behave the same across
> > different block types.  Is there an implied dependency here?  Or some
> > historical browser behavior that was a source of bugs?  This is
> > roughly a third of the tests!
> >
> > font-family-rule-011.xht
> > s/deafult/default/
> >
> > font-family-rule-017.xht
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-family-rule-
> 017.htm
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-family-rule-017.xht
> 
> 
> 
> > According to the passing condition of the test, I don't see how a
> > failure could occur.  The assertion also seems incorrect here -
> > "Multiple white spaces not inside quoted font-family name can be
> > collapsed to single white space OR not collapsed."  The wording in the
> > spec is pretty clear that it's collapsed.  If there's an errata that
> > applies somewhere, please add a reference.
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-family-rule-
> 017.htm
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-family-rule-017.xht
> 
> Section 15.3 says
> "If quoting is omitted, any white space characters before and after the font
> name are ignored and any sequence of white space characters inside the
> font name is converted to a single space."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-family-prop
> 
> while the assert says
> 
> "Multiple white spaces not inside quoted font-family name can be collapsed
> to single white space OR not collapsed."
> 
> The "OR not collapsed" part is not true, not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > font-matching-rule-014.xht
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-matching-rule-014.xht
> 
> > font-family: "Missing Italic Oblique" serif; I think you need a comma
> > here, as is this is a rule with invalid syntax
> >
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-matching-rule-
> 014.htm
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-matching-rule-014.xht
> 
> font-family: "Missing Italic Oblique" serif;
> 
> should be instead
> 
> font-family: "Missing Italic Oblique", serif;
> 
> The CSS validator will also catch and report such error:
> 
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-
> validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftest.csswg.org%2Fsource%2Fcontrib
> utors%2Fmicrosoft%2Fsubmitted%2FChapter_15%2Ffont-matching-rule-
> 014.xht&profile=css21&usermedium=all&warning=2&lang=en
> 
> Value Error : font-family Too many values or values are not recognized :
> "Missing Italic Oblique" serif "Missing Italic Oblique" serif
> 
> > font-matching-rule-015.xht
> > I don't think the assertion is valid here.  The spec says "Typically,
> > sizes for scalable fonts are rounded to the nearest whole pixel" but
> > this is not really current practice nor does the wording make it a
> > requirement.
> >
> > font-size-003.xht
> > Is there a better way to test this maybe?  A table of these dots?  A
> > lot of testers are going to be squinting at their screens for this one.
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-size-003.htm
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-size-003.xht
> 
> Does the CSS 2.1 test suite really need to test 'font-size: 1px' ?
> 
> 
> 
> > font-size-004.xht, font-size-005.xht
> > I think you're really asserting that +/-0px is the same as 0px
> >
> > font-size-012.xht
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-size-012.htm
> 
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-size-012.xht
> 
> 
> > Not sure the assertion is correct, I don't think font-size is set to
> > 'auto' here.  The second font-size declaration is invalid and so is
> > omitted.
> >
> > font-size-023.xht
> > Same as above
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-size-012.htm
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-size-012.xht
> 
> and
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-size-023.xht
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-size-023.htm
> 
> 
> <meta name="assert" content="The 'font-size' property sets a minimum
> minus one length value in points is invalid and resets its value to 'auto'." />
> 
> but what John Daggett says is correct. The declaration with invalid value is
> ignored and so, the previous one is honored, applied, not reset. A so-called
> 'font-size: auto' does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > font-size-rule-001.xht
> > Assertion wording is dodgy, the second font-size rule is invalid so
> > the element inherits the default font-size value, "fall back" implies
> > something different.
> 
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-size-rule-001.htm
> 
> 
> 
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15
> /font-size-rule-001.xht
> 
>  <meta name="assert" content="The 'font-size' does not allow for a negative
> value. It will fall back to the default value 'medium'." />
> 
> Proposed replacement
> ====================
> 
>  <meta name="assert" content="The 'font-size' does not allow for a negative
> value; such 'font-size' declaration should be ignored. Then the  'font-size'
> property value can be determined by computed font-size of containers and
> from cascade mechanisms (user, author, user agent)." />
> 
> (...)
> 
> /* in this testcase, the font-size applied on the span#span2 should inherit
> (user agent) default 'font-size' value for body element which is 'medium' by
> user agent style sheet. */
> 
> 
> 
> > font-weight-010.xht
> > This test makes assumptions about the default font.  If the font is
> > set to a font family with a single, 600-weight the test will fail.
> >
> > font-weight-rule-004.xht
> > Assumes the default font has just two weights, 400 and 700.
> >
> > font-weight-rule-006.xht
> > Ditto.

Fixed all cases addressed here including jdaggett's

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:53:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 December 2010 16:53:53 GMT