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

Re: Tests with difficult/confusing pass condition/wording

From: Řyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:12:12 +0200
To: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Message-ID: <op.virwmmmlru61ud@oyvinds-desktop>
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:57:33 +0200, Gérard Talbot  
<css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:

>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c414-flt-ln-002.htm
>> Maybe this can be split up into multiple simpler tests?
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c414-flt-ln-003.htm
> looks like one but it's not a less complex testcase.

Indeed, it looks like it has many of the same issues.

>> The float's top may not be higher than the top of the
>> span's linebox, so the TC seems to assume that 1.3em lineheight is
>> exactly enough space for a medium border.
> That's probably where I would start trying to correct, improve the
> testcase. Is there a need to have a wrapping border around each of those
> small boxes?

I don't think so. If one wants to test vertical alignment of floats with  
non-zero borders, that can be a separate test (for all I know, one could  
exist already, I haven't checked).

>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c525-font-wt-000.htm
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c527-font-10.htm
>> This assumes that there is a "very light" weight available for the
>> default font or that a tester knows which faces are available and
>> that using the lightest one is fine
> Regarding that c525-font-wt-000.htm test, one idea would be to provide a
> link of downloadable fonts (which should be useful or recommendable) for
> the test.

I guess so. Others do already ('font' metadata flag).

> Another idea is to make the text font-size much bigger (say 64px) to
> give the tester an honest chance to better see and compare. When using
> DejaVu Sans font face and with a big font-size, I can see that some
> browsers fail that test ... (or that the test is not correct? I haven't
> examined the test...it's not a simple one)

I can't spot any obvious differences between browsers here (Ubuntu and  
Windows XP).

Big text won't help with the fact that the "very light" text won't be any  
lighter than "normal" if the appropriate font variant doesn't exist. For  
instance, I don't seem to have the Extralight style of DejaVu Sans (and in  
either case the test defaults to other families in the browsers I tried).

> I have mentioned
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c527-font-10.htm as a
> questionable test in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Aug/0000.html

Yes, I found that one, which is why I didn't mention the part about  
font-size and line-height (which I agree a tester can't be expected to be  
able to measure, not having in-depth information about the dimensions of  
each glyph in the default font).

>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/separated-borders-model-007.htm
>> Moreover, this test seems to depend on the HTML 'rules' attribute
>> mapping to/interacting with CSS rules in a certain unspecified way
>> (Opera currently applies the horizontal rules to the <tr>s for
>> instance, haven't investigated what makes Fx/IE fail it; HTML5attempts  
>> to specify the presentational hints but seems
>> unfinished/broken)
> This particular matter has been discussed here:
> [CSS21] rules="all" attribute specification and border-collapse property
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0007.html

Mails in that thread indicate that "it's not /really/ in scope for CSSWG"  
and that HTML5 will specify the exact presentational hints. (Also, the  
CSS21 spec says "[t]he UA *may* choose to honor presentational attributes  
in an HTML source document" (emphasis mine)). I just think this seems more  
like an HTML(5) test than a CSS test.

> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/quotes-036.htm
> was in Arron's list of testcases
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Jul/0041.html
> Not sure if quotes-035 was also mentioned elsewhere as well.
> It was discussed in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Jul/0069.html

Indeed, it looks like 036 might be removed. The wording issue still  
applies to 035, though.

>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/min-height-080.htm
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/max-height-080.htm
>> See also
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2009Sep/0014.html
>> - to an observer not familiar with the spec's terminology, it is not
>> obvious that a thick line counts as a "box"
> Agreed. I propose "thick black bar across the page" or "thick black
> horizontal line across the page" or "black ribbon across the page"
> instead as a replacement.

Sounds good (personally I think I'd prefer "line").

Řyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 16:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:20 UTC