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

Re: Review Report on section 8.4 (Padding property): c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:23:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4C89887C.1000701@inkedblade.net>
To: css21testsuite@gtalbot.org
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 09/09/2010 04:50 PM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
>> On 09/09/2010 02:13 PM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
>>>>> Author: Ian Hickson
>>>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm
> <meta name="flags" content="ahem">
>>>>> should be replaced with
>>>>> <meta name="flags" content="ahem invalid">
>>>> Fixed.
>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/approved/css2.1/src/css1/c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm
>>>>> A font-size 16px version of this test is available.
>>>> ?
>>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm
>> I think the 12px version is better, because it doesn't require
>> use of a repeating decimal for the inches. :)
>
> I don't like fractions like 0.16667 in any testcase either ... or
> odd-looking fractions like 1.00542cm .

1.6667 is worse because it's supposed to be 1.66666666... [on until infinity]
You can't ever actually represent it in CSS.

>> Was there a reason you wanted to create a 16px version?
>> ~fantasai
>
> Well, yes. In order to meet my very own recommendations which I emailed
> on september 25th 2007 with subject line:
> "CSS 2.1 Test suite: minimal font size problem and issue"
> I sent it to Ian Hickson but also to you. That email had IMO a few good
> reasons to create 16px version.

If that's the reason, then you should use not 16px for the font,
but some other number (greater than 16px) that doesn't result in
the need for a repeating decimal. Do that, and I would be happy
to replace the testcase with yours.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 01:23:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:52:03 GMT