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

Re: [RC6] white-space-processing-056: false positives

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:09:55 -0700
To: "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Cc: Public CSS test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120812010955.GA14425@crum.dbaron.org>
On Saturday 2012-08-11 19:49 -0400, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
> Le Sam 11 août 2012 18:19, L. David Baron a écrit :
> > I don't think the Ahem font provides a glyph for ideographic space,
> 
> I never considered such possibility; I would not know.
> 
> > so it seems that you'd get a glyph from a different font -- and I
> > could imagine the results being substantially different depending on
> > which font, and whether that font has an ideographic space that's
> > exactly 1em wide.
> 
> Well, then I can not explain some browser passing and failing while
> declaring the same browser default font.

If the default font you defined also doesn't have an ideographic
space (which is likely), then it depends on how the browser searches
the rest of the fonts on the system, which is
implementation-defined.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2012 01:10:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 12 August 2012 01:10:26 GMT