Re: 20101001: missing tests

> On Oct 3, 2010, at 12:20 pm, Gérard Talbot wrote:
>
>>> When I compare the HTML4 and XHTML1 tests in the 20101001 zip file, I
>> find many tests missing from the html4 directory, and some in html4
>> that
>>> are not in xhtml1 (I'm not sure how many are expected to differ):
>>> Only
>> in html4/                Only in xhtml1/
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> overflow-html-body-001
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/overflow-html-body-001.htm
>>
>> That overflow-html-body-001 testcase should not be in XHTML too and it
>> is properly marked with
>>
>> <meta name="flags" content="HTMLonly">
>>
>> I have not checked about the others.
>
> Indeed, all the tests I listed that are only present in html/ have the
> HTMLonly flag. So that leaves the following, which are missing from
> html4/:
>
> absolute-replaced-height-006

Simon,

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/xhtml1/absolute-replaced-height-006.xht

That absolute-replaced-height-006 testcase has :

      <meta name="flags" content="nonHTML svg" />

I have not checked the testcase any further... just the flag.

> absolute-replaced-height-013
> absolute-replaced-height-020
> absolute-replaced-height-027
> absolute-replaced-height-034
> absolute-replaced-width-002
> absolute-replaced-width-003
> absolute-replaced-width-004
> absolute-replaced-width-007
> absolute-replaced-width-009
> absolute-replaced-width-010
> absolute-replaced-width-011
> absolute-replaced-width-014
> absolute-replaced-width-016
> absolute-replaced-width-017
> absolute-replaced-width-018
> absolute-replaced-width-021
> absolute-replaced-width-023
> absolute-replaced-width-024
> absolute-replaced-width-025
> absolute-replaced-width-028
> absolute-replaced-width-030
> absolute-replaced-width-031
> absolute-replaced-width-032
> absolute-replaced-width-035
> absolute-replaced-width-037
> absolute-replaced-width-038
> absolute-replaced-width-039
> absolute-replaced-width-042
> absolute-replaced-width-049
> absolute-replaced-width-051
> absolute-replaced-width-052
> absolute-replaced-width-053
> absolute-replaced-width-056
> absolute-replaced-width-063
> absolute-replaced-width-065
> absolute-replaced-width-066
> absolute-replaced-width-067
> absolute-replaced-width-070
> absolute-replaced-width-077


> block-replaced-width-002
> block-replaced-width-003
> block-replaced-width-004
> block-replaced-width-007

> float-replaced-width-007
> float-replaced-width-008
> float-replaced-width-009
> float-replaced-width-012

> inline-block-replaced-width-002
> inline-block-replaced-width-003
> inline-block-replaced-width-004

> inline-replaced-width-002
> inline-replaced-width-003
> inline-replaced-width-004
> inline-replaced-width-007


At least 16 of those *-replaced-width-* testcases should be removed from
html4 *and* from xhtml1 because they were considered incorrect.

See 11- Rejectable testcases because undefined in the section 10.3.x in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Sep/0161.html

The others may have been removed from html4 for the same reasons.
Whenever a containing block's (width, max-width, min-width) depends on
its intrinsic content, then you can not deal with percentage. This is
often repeated in section 10 of CSS 2.1 spec.


"
If the containing block's width depends on this element's width, then
the resulting layout is undefined in CSS 2.1.
"
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#min-max-widths


"
Percentage intrinsic widths are first evaluated with respect to the
containing block's width, if that width does not itself depend on the
replaced element's width. If it does, then the resulting layout is
undefined in CSS 2.1.
"
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-width-property


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

CSS 2.1 test suite (RC2; October 1st 2010):
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/toc.html

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 20:17:38 UTC