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

Re: [RC5, pre-RC6] list-style-position-applies-to-* testcases: inheritance of list-style-position versus applicability

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:02:01 -0700
Message-ID: <3bc615c5a1f75f198d7a754cf57ea4ce.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "Øyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com>, "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

Le Jeu 1 septembre 2011 9:42, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:36:35 +0200, Arron Eicholz
>> <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> If an element does not have, does not render a list-item, then
>>>> list-style-
>>>> position can not apply to it.
>>> That is not true every property applies to every element at all
>>> times. It
>>> has to for inheritance to work properly.
>> No, that's not how CSS 2.1 uses the term. About "Applies to":
>> "This part lists the elements to which the property applies. All
>> elements
>> are considered to have all properties, but some properties have no
>> rendering
>> effect on some types of elements." [1]
> Correct.  The "Applies To:" line is just a hint about what sort of
> things the property is supposed to have an effect on.
>> So an element with display: table-row-group "has" the
>> list-style-position
>> property, but the property does not apply. An assert that reads "The
>> 'list-style-position' property applies to elements with 'display' set
>> to
>> 'table-row-group'." is at odds with the spec.
> Not necessarily.  You're assuming the word means the same thing in the
> assert and the propdef table.  'list-style-position' does "apply to"
> display:table-row-group elements, in the sense that you can set it on
> them and it's respected, held onto, and propagated through
> inheritance.  The test is testing that implementations don't ignore
> the 'list-style-position' value just because the "Applies To:" line
> doesn't match.
> I can see how it's confusing, though.  It would probably be good to
> use some phrasing other than "applies to" in the asserts.

The way I understand this:

            element's property is assigned a (initial or inherited) value
applies to
            has a rendering effect on

Sometimes, "applies to" means assign, more often "applies to" in the
property definition mean has a rendering effect. Regardless such
vocabulary issue, the list-style-position-applies-to [001-015] testcase
text assert are not, IMO, appropriate.

regards, Gérard
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011

CSS 2.1 test suite harness:
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 19:02:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:23 UTC