- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 03:48:46 -0800
- To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Le Ven 3 décembre 2010 23:52, fantasai a écrit : > On 10/13/2010 08:55 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> The pass conditions of the tests >> background-root-004/005/006/007/008/009/010/013 incorrectly imply or >> require that the background of the root element does not extend >> outside the root element's border. The wording varies; in some >> cases it caused me to mark the test as failing and in some cases it >> didn't. But I think it should be improved in all of these cases. > > I've updated the pass conditions for all of these tests. Let me > know if this is adequate. > > ~fantasai Fantasai, in http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/colors/background-root-008.xht and in http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/colors/background-root-009.xht "should be a line of squares" I would use and continue to use "white tile" just like in many other background-root-* testcases. Or even better (my preference): to use "bathroom tiles" (because it is intuitive) like in some other background-root-* testcases. Using and reusing systematically the same expression for the same image should contribute to make this univocal to testers and easy to figure out. Suggestion: /s/should be a line of squares/should be a line of white tiles/ or /s/should be a line of squares/should be a line of bathroom tiles/ regards, Gérard -- Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ CSS 2.1 test suite (RC3; October 27th 2010): http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/toc.html CSS 2.1 test suite contributors: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 11:49:26 UTC