W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > April 2012

4 issues with background-position-applies-to-001 [RC6]

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:55:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4feef0c3bf0373fb91848a583d531af8.squirrel@ed-sh-cp3.entirelydigital.com>
To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Hello all,



Height set on an element with display set to table-cell will be rendered
differently among browsers. As far as I know, this issue has not been
clarified yet.

eg.: The used height of div#cell is 90px (and not 96px) in Firefox 11.0,
Opera 11.62

The displayed height of div#cell is 96px although its computed height
value as given by Konqueror 4.8.2's DOMtreeviewer and Chrome
18.0.1025.162's web inspector tool is 0: this seems like a bug.

So, the test is passed regardless of the used height of div#cell; if the
div#cell's used height is 90px, then I think it should be a fail. There
is dedicated test in the test suite on this btw:



and its status is Specification Issue. It would be great if such
specification issue was clarified soon.

If background-image, background-position are set for an element with
display set to table-row-group, then such background-image (right side
and bottom side) should be partially covered by the border of the cell.
The resulting layout should be a 12px by 12px blue square and not a 15px
by 15px blue square: we should see 12px by 12px of blue from that 15px
by 15px blue square.

The test as worded gives no indication of how tall and large the blue
area should be.

As far as I can see this, the blue area I see is 12px by 12px in Firefox
11, Opera 11.62 and Konqueror 4.8.2 but it is 15px by 15px in Chrome

So, right here, I'd say all 4 tested browsers fail this test. I have not
checked yet IE8 nor IE9.

3- The test uses a single cell and a single row to test background
positioning on an element with display set to 'table-row-group'. This is
definitely not ideal and it may give false, unreliable results. We
already know of a test on background positioning on a table-row which
was reporting a false positive. See

4- The test declares 'table-layout: fixed' but the table does not have a
set width. Generally speaking, setting 'table-layout: fixed' on an
element with display set to 'table' should have a specified width,
otherwise it is not useful, otherwise it's pointless.

5- A quick, superficial look indicates that several
background-position-applies-to-* may have some or all of the same issues
listed so far.

There was another issue with that test which ... I can't remember right

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:

Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 04:56:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:24 UTC