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

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

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:18:58 -0700
Message-ID: <0dc29e9c3329bcc9a9b05f06e4b59586.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Cc: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Hello,

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.


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 Sunday, 31 October 2010 19:19:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 31 October 2010 19:19:46 GMT