http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/white-space-normal-003.htm http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/white-space-normal-004.htm (Author: Ian Hickson) http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/white-space-processing-055.htm (Author: Microsoft) These tests rely on Ahem glyphs to fill the entire linebox height, but they also use zero width no-break space (U+FEFF) which is not found in Ahem. The UA may then use some other font. So there seems to be an unstated assumption that this other unknown font has height above the baseline less than or equal to that of Ahem, and likewise for the depth below the baseline. Thus I believe the tests are invalid. Perhaps there should be a modified version of Ahem where U+FEFF is defined? (Or perhaps better yet, U+2060?) (The white-space-processing-055 test may also fall under the same issue as was mentioned in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Nov/0063.html>.) -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASAReceived on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 16:12:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 November 2011 16:12:52 GMT