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

Re: [RC4] containing-block-001 not testing what it should

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:27:30 +1100
Message-ID: <4D2FB492.2040005@css-class.com>
To: css21testsuite@gtalbot.org
CC: Public CSS testsuite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, Arron Eicholz <arron.eicholz@microsoft.com>
On 14/01/2011 7:01 AM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
> Le Jeu 13 janvier 2011 4:32, Alan Gresley a écrit :
>> Hello,
>> <http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101210/html4/containing-block-001.htm>

>> The assert has,
>>  "If the element's position is 'relative', the containing block
>>   is formed by the content edge of the nearest block-level
>>ancestor box."
>> For this to be true, the test needs a grandchild descendant.
> Alan,

> The testcase could have been more challenging, a bit more complex to
> really test, verify implementations. (So that testcases have a fair
> chance to reveal, to disclose/identify incorrect implementations.) Say,
> by creating an intermediary static block with some padding area between
> the real containing block (grand-parent) and a relatively positioned
> element (child).


This is possible. It has given me a idea (see bottom of email).

>> I propose
>> this test as a replacement.
>> <http://css-class.com/test/css21testsuite/containing-block-001.htm>
> The outermost span in your containing-block-001.htm is an inline element
> and has no padding area... but it's already a more challenging and more
> appropriate testcase.

When I added padding, I got weird results. See the other thread with the 
subject "containing-block-001 additional"

On 14/01/2011 7:23 AM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
> Le Jeu 13 janvier 2011 12:01, "Gérard Talbot" a écrit :
>> The outermost span in your containing-block-001.htm is an inline element
> Alan,
> I understand now (initially I missed that) why the outermost span (later
> renamed, id-ed "span1" in your additional testcases) is an inline
> element: it furthermore verifies, challenges implementations of rel.
> pos. elements versus their correct containing block. That's excellent.

Regarding the condition of a relative position element being sized by 
it's containing block. A block-level box has to be within a span to meet 
the other condition nearest block-level ancestor box. The later 
condition is really about position and not a size. It really make 10.1 
look a little undefined regarding position relative and containing 
block. There should be test with offset if we are going to test positioning.

Ok, I propose a new test for containing-block-001 which test both sizing 
and positioning together. The good thing about this test is that 
removing position: relative changes the positioning of the green box.


Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Friday, 14 January 2011 02:28:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:22 UTC