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

RE: [RC3] background-position-202 invalid; comma not a valid separator in CSS 2.1

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:08:00 -0700
Message-ID: <8779bca76b1c07649415d8cd7cc40f99.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

Le Lun 1 novembre 2010 16:21, Arron Eicholz a écrit :
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:01 PM Gérard Talbot wrote:
>> A number of browsers (except Firefox 3.6.11; I have not checked with
>> IE8) fail
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/background-position-
>> 202.htm
>>
>> because comma is being used as a syntaxical separator for background-
>> position values. This is invalid CSS 2.1.
>>
>> Reduced testcase:
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-
>> position-202.htm
>>
>> CSS validation (CSS 2.1 profile):
>> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-
>> validator/validator?uri=http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21t
>> estsuite/background-position-
>> 202.htm&warning=2&profile=css21&usermedium=all&lang=en
>>
>> Validation report:
>>
>> 14 	.positive .control 	Value Error : background-position , is an
>> incorrect operator : 50%,0% 50%,0%
>> 15 	.case.t10 .test 	Value Error : background-position , is an
>> incorrect
>> operator : 50%,center 50%,center
>
> This test is designed to be forward compatible with CSS3. In order to be
> compatible with CSS3 syntax, which we changed, the tests needs to have
> the additional style rules ".postive .control" and ".case.t10 .test". If
> these rules are not in the test then the test cannot be used for CSS3 as
> well.
> This issue is more of an issue with the CSS3 spec not being compatible
> with CSS2.1 but it should not invalidate this tests in any way.


Sorry. I did not mean to say that we should reject the whole testcase
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/background-position-202.htm
but only the part using comma.

All I'm saying is that using comma as a syntaxical separator for
background- position values is invalid CSS 2.1.



> If
> browsers are failing this test

Chrome 6.0.472.63, Safari 5.0.2, Chrome 7.0.517.41, Opera 10.63 and
Konqueror 4.5.2 fail this reduced testcase:

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-position-202.htm

only because of that comma usage.

> then they actually have a bug in either
> parsing or their implementation of CSS 2.1 background-position or CSS3
> background-position.


I'll choose CSS3 background-position here.


> I do not think this case should be changed since it is a good test and
> needs to cover all the scenarios.
>
> Potentially the case could be split out and put into its own case. If
> that is done, that new case with those rules, how do we flag the file.
> Its invalid for CSS 2.1 but valid for CSS3. This sounds like something
> we would have to special case for building CSS3 test suite.

I am for removing

<div class="case negative positive t10"><div class="test"><div
class="control"></div></div></div>

or even better removing the 2 commas (and correspondent comments) in

   .positive .control { background-position: 50%, 0%; } /* CSS3
background supports comma */

   .case.t10 .test { background-position: 50%, center; } /* CSS3
background supports comma */

from
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/background-position-202.htm

and that's it.

regards, Gérard
-- 
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/

CSS 2.1 test suite (RC3; October 27th 2010):
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/toc.html

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 00:08:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 November 2010 00:08:49 GMT