W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [CSS 2.1] cases that do not pass in any browser

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4C687292.1070601@inkedblade.net>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
On 08/05/2010 01:30 AM, John Daggett wrote:
> Arron Eicholz wrote:
>> Cases determined correct:
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/font-family-name-022.htm
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/font-family-name-023.htm
> These two were not correct given the change in font family name
> quoting rules.  See CSS 2.1 issue 114 for more details.
> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-114
> I've checked in updated versions that conform to the new rules.
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/font-weight-bolder-001.htm
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/font-weight-lighter-001.htm
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100701/html4/font-weight-normal-001.htm
> As noted previously, these are optional tests for browsers that
> support more than simple regular/bold/italic/bold italic font
> families (translation: browsers using Windows GDI). We should
> probably pull them out of the general test list (if the build
> system allows that) and append a note somewhere about these.

I don't think it makes sense to pull them out of the build system.
If the tests are correct, and the behavior they test is required,
then they belong in the system. If the reason an implementation
doesn't pass is because the system libraries are insufficient,
then it still doesn't pass. The implementor can make a note in
their results of the reason and mark it "not applicable".

Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 23:05:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:15 UTC