Re: RC4 Invalid tests

On 12/13/2010 11:55 AM, Peter Linss wrote:
> The harness is currently reporting 78 tests from RC4 as invalid:
> http://test.csswg.org/harness/results?s=CSS21_%HTML_RC4&f=23
>
> This means that these tests were reported as invalid (from a formal implementation report by a vendor) in previous versions of
> the test suite and have not been changed since that report.
>
> I accept that it's possible that some of these tests have been examined and found to be valid after all, if that's the case, I
> need a list of those so I can clear the invalid state. If they're genuinely invalid, then these are the tests that need fixing
> first for RC5...

The page breaking tests need a rehaul. That'll likely take a few days.

anonymous-boxes-001 was fixed by reference:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Dec/0098.html

I responded wrt bidi tests in
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Dec/0097.html

block-in-inline-relpos-002 needs WG review; it was written for Issue 138,
but dbaron thinks the spec prose is not clear enough on this point.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0122.html

border-*-width-036/border-*-width-047/padding-* were reported in:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0123.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0128.html
The font test problems were reported in
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0263.html
   http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101210/xhtml1/font-matching-rule-010.xht
Arron is responsible for these tests.

c5504-mrgn-l-002 is afaik valid according to the spec:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Dec/0002.html
However it does need some improvements still; see:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Dec/0016.html

Afaict (I could be wrong) the counter-increment-* and counter-reset-* tests
listed there are currently not invalid, but their titles and assertions are
misleading.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0040.html
These are Arron's tests; he should respond to dbaron about them.

quotes-035 has been rewritten as a reftest, which satisfies the problem report
about lacking a pass condition.

I believe table-valign-001 and table-valign-002 are valid per Issue 26:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0314.html

I'm not sure what's up with rtl-linebreak.

I haven't fixed z-index-020

~fantasai

Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 23:38:29 UTC