W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > February 2011

Re: [RC5, pre-RC6] font-family-024 : its reftest and text assertion

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:51:10 -0800
Message-ID: <da547cc80df480f7379f4a5a79a5f7f6.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

Le Jeu 24 février 2011 16:35, John Daggett a écrit :
> Hi Gérard,
>
>> 1-
>> <meta name="assert" content="System font names are only allowed with
>> the
>> font shorthand, not in font-family rules">
>>
>> but after the clarification talks we had in the thread
>>
>> font-051/052/053/054/055/056 invalid (system font keywords are ok font
>> families)
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0171.html
>>
>> that is not true
>>
>> 2-
>> The reftest for
>> font-family-name-024
>> is also wrong.
>
> This isn't quite correct, the other tests were invalid because of
> the odd behavior of the productions involved with the 'font'
> shorthand.  The testcase font-family-name-024 will only be
> invalid for systems containing fonts that match the system font
> names.  This is almost never the case.  So I think it would make
> sense to simply revise the test to include that the test is only
> valid on systems where this is true.  We can include on the test
> page a fontlist containing *quoted* system font names which will
> explicitly say PASS/FAIL concerning this condition.
>
> System contains no fonts with names that match system font names: PASS
>
> Does that sound like it makes sense?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Daggett



John, it still does not make sense.

Point 2-

The test has 7 <p>s but its reftest uses one <p>. How could that be? ...
regardless of validity of css rules.

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/font-family-name-024.htm
(RC5)

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-name-024.htm

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024.htm

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024-ref.htm

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024-ref.xht



Point 1-

Everything I was emailed in october 2010 now contradicts this
font-family-name-024 test


[
The declaration:
  font: 32px caption;
is equivalent to:
  font: initial;
  font-size: 32px;
  font-family: caption;
and is perfectly valid.
]

[
While "caption" in `font: caption` has a special meaning, it does not
have one in `font: 32px caption`. It's just like `font: 32px Verdana`.
]

[
'caption' is a perfectly valid value of <'font-family'>
]

etc...

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

CSS 2.1 test suite (RC5; January 11th 2011):
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/toc.html

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 01:51:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 February 2011 01:51:58 GMT