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

Re: Preliminary feedback, comments on multicol tests

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:40:04 -0400
Message-ID: <73c149c702ae73329f6c4eb612fb0a81.squirrel@ed-sh-cp3.entirelydigital.com>
To: "Øyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com>
Cc: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "HÃ¥kon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>

Le Mer 16 mai 2012 10:51, Øyvind Stenhaug a écrit :
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:37:07 +0200, Gérard Talbot
> <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-multicol/nightly-unstable/html4/containing-001.htm

>> Issue 1
>> -------

[snipped]
If Ahem font is reused in the reftest in the same manner, then maybe
this is okay since baseline alignment is not the target of the test.
Personnally, I do not and would not do this.


>> Issue 2
>> -------
>>
>> line 19	widows: 1;
>> 	orphans: 1;
>>
>> I do not understand why widows and orphans have to be specified: is
>> there a need to use, specify 1?
>
> In this case it doesn't look like it's necessary.
>
>> If/Assuming these declarations are
>> needed, then shouldn't the test be flagged as paged?
>
> The "paged" flag means "Only valid for paged media". I believe there is
> one or more case where such declarations *are* needed, to allow for
> column
> breaking after the first line and/or before the last line of a block.
> That
> doesn't mean the tests aren't valid for non-paged media.


Indeed, it does not mean that the tests are not valid for non-paged
media. I am saying I do not see why widows and orphans is specified in
that test; it's not necessary, it looks to me to be 2 extraneous
declarations.


Issue 3
-------

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-multicol/nightly-unstable/html4/multicol-reduce-000.htm

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-multicol/nightly-unstable/html4/multicol-basic-001.htm

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-multicol/nightly-unstable/html4/multicol-basic-003.htm


To a human, Firefox 12.0, Chrome 19.0.1084.46, Safari 5.1.7 and
Konqueror 4.8.3 FAIL these tests.

To a machine/software running automated tests-reftests checking, Firefox
12.0, Chrome 19.0.1084.46, Safari 5.1.7 and Konqueror 4.8.3 PASS these
tests.

Their correspondent/associated reftests
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-multicol/nightly-unstable/html4/multicol-reduce-000-ref.htm

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-multicol/nightly-unstable/html4/multicol-basic-ref.htm

will create false positives; the reftest is not reliable.

I'm afraid there are MORE tests versus reftests like these.

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 Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:40:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:40:47 GMT