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

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

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:14:42 -0400
Message-ID: <a59fae2337b92b1d27cf3f9c643e222e.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>

Le Jeu 26 avril 2012 0:55, "Gérard Talbot" a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> [RC6]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-position-applies-to-001.htm
>
> [nightly-unstable]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-position-applies-to-001.htm
>
> 1-
> 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:
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/height-table-cell-001.htm
>
> http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/testcase/height-table-cell-001/
>
> and its status is Specification Issue. It would be great if such
> specification issue was clarified soon.
>
> 2-
> 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.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#table-layers
> 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
> 18.0.1025.162.
>
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2011Sep/0040.html
>
> 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.


New tests:

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-position-applies-to-001a.html

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-position-applies-to-001b.html

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-position-applies-to-001c.html

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-position-applies-to-001d.html

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-position-applies-to-001e.html

Firefox 12.0, Opera 11.62 pass all 5 tests.

Chrome 18.0.1025.162, Safari 5.1.5 and Konqueror 4.8.2 fail all 5 tests.

IE 8 passes 001a but fails the other 4.

The 5th test (001e) will have to be reevaluated once
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/height-table-cell-001.htm
(1) has been approved. It is an important test that has border of a cell
overlapping bottom right area of tbody element.


(1):
http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/testcase/height-table-cell-001/



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


I remember now. If the test
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-position-applies-to-001.htm
or
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-position-applies-to-001.htm
is wrong, incorrect and is a false positive, then it may mean that some
"17.5.1 Table layers and transparency" (eg
table-layer-transparency-006.htm) tests are weak or too easy to pass or
can not fail or are not really testing what they claim to be testing.

Gérard
-- 
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html

CSS 2.1 test suite harness:
http://test.csswg.org/harness/

Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 02:15:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 29 April 2012 02:15:19 GMT