[RC5, pre-RC6] font-family-valid-characters-001: questions

Arron and Fantasai,

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/font-family-valid-characters-001.htm
(RC5)

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-valid-characters-001.htm

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15/font-family-valid-characters-001.htm

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15/font-family-valid-characters-001.xht



http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-family-prop

states:
[
For example, the following declarations are invalid:

font-family: Red/Black, sans-serif;
font-family: "Lucida" Grande, sans-serif;
font-family: Ahem!, sans-serif;
font-family: test@foo, sans-serif;
font-family: #POUND, sans-serif;
font-family: Hawaii 5-0, sans-serif;
]

If the declaration with Hawaii 5-0 is invalid, then
#div1
            {
                font-family: test-foo, Ahem;
            }

should be an invalid declaration as well.

The testcase actually suggests that only test-foo  as font-family name
is invalid (important note: if such test-foo font-family is
unretrievable since not installed to begin with, then the test can not
fail that part of the test) and then that Ahem font-family should be
used.

--------------

I am not sure why

#div3
            {
                font-family: test\foo, Ahem;
            }


should not be parsed as escaping an hexadecimal number like
test\00000foo


------------

        <meta name="flags" content="ahem">
        <meta name="assert" content="Valid characters in font family
names.">

For sure, the assert should better reflect the conditions, goals of the
test and be more accurate.

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/