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

Microsoft's numbers-units-014 and table-height-algorithm-026

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:43:46 -0700
Message-ID: <c4807714cfb530a11aa070688b8e7e5b.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "Řyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com>
Hello all,

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/numbers-units-014.htm

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_4/numbers-units-014.htm

That testcase still has problems; as coded, it can not fail and does not
test what it tries to be testing.

            #parent
            {
                font: 50px/1 ahem;
            }
            #div1
            {
                font-size: larger;
            }
            #test
            {
                background: black;
                height: 1em;
                width: 1em;
            }
            div
            {
                margin-top: 5px;
            }
            #reference
            {
                background: black;
                height: 25px;
                width: 25px;
            }


        <div id="parent">
            <div id="div1">
                <div id="test"></div>
                <div>X</div>
            </div>
        </div>


#div1 computed font-size could be 50px mult scaling factor of
(1.2|..|1.5) = 60px or .. or 75px or according to 15.7 Font-size
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-size-props
any other value since
"In CSS1, the suggested scaling factor between adjacent indexes was 1.5,
which user experience proved to be too large. In CSS2, the suggested
scaling factor for a computer screen between adjacent indexes was 1.2,
which still created issues for the small sizes. Implementation
experience has demonstrated that a fixed ratio between adjacent
absolute-size keywords is problematic, and **this [CSS 2.1]
specification does not recommend such a fixed ratio**."

As coded,
                <div id="test"></div>
                <div>X</div>
are exactly the same since 'X' creates a square of exactly 1em in height
and width regardless of involved or specified font-size.
And since we do not know the scaling factor between medium and large,
then we can not compare with a reference.

There is no #reference node in the markup code.

I think that testcase should just be removed because it does not test
what it is aiming at or supposed to be testing to begin with. I do not
see how that testcase can be rehabilitated or "restaured".

=================

Řyvind's feedback on table-height-algorithm-026 :
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Feb/0031.html

Testcase:
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/table-height-algorithm-026.htm

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_17/table-height-algorithm-026.htm

The testcase compares the vertical position of bottom borders, it does
not compare the vertical alignment of the text as sitting on the
baseline and without any descender.

There are many differences between browsers in the way they style by
default submit or push buttons: font used (font: -webkit-small-control
for Chrome), padding-top and padding-bottom (1px for Chrome 6 and Opera
10.63; 0px for Firefox 3.6.10).

I propose this replacement:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/table-height-algorithm-026.htm
and I welcome feedback on it.

The testcase still would require to update the text assert; as worded, I
do not understand it.

That testcase could still be simplified by changing background-color
from light gray (#DDD) to white color.

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 Friday, 15 October 2010 15:44:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 October 2010 15:44:31 GMT