- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:50:34 -0800
- To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Hello all, >> Gérard Talbot wrote: >> This is the same problem with testcases which expect the tester to be >> able to >> see, measure (or compare) a 9px (or 12px or 18px) difference between 2 >> objects with the naked eye. > > Arron Eicholz wrote: > I don't know of any cases that you are referring to here Arron, I was referring to these testcases http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-00-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-01-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-02-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-03-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-04-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-05-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-06-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-07-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-08-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-09-b.htm http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/t1508-c527-font-10-c.htm which I mentioned and commented in my January 25th 2010 email with subject line: " t1508-c527-font-00-b.htm to t1508-c527-font-10-c.htm: Testcases pass condition are not self-evident " http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Jan/0043.html > but I would be > happy to address those cases if you call them out (note I haven't gotten > a chance to address any issues since 2/9 so I am a bit behind on > feedback if you already called them out). No problem. I will call them out when I encounter them. >> >> > Plus, we should have images that are exact measurements. One for >> mm, >> > one for inches, etc. So if an end result of a test is supposed to >> > have a space of 10mm, the tester can clearly see that the end >> results >> > are 10 mm. >> >> Creating custom (vertical and horizontal) measurement rulers (for in, >> mm, >> cm, px, etc.) is rather easy to do. I have submitted 2 for the test >> suite. >> > > Rulers are a great idea but you forget a couple major issues with using > images. Zooming and HighDPI. These two features do not have any > guidelines on how they should react on images. Are they required to > scale the images? I say yes but that then can possibly change image > rendering a 1px line into 2px or more. That is problematic. Using rulers > restricts us from testing zooming and HighDPI scenarios with the same > tests that we have already created. This is one reason why the '96dpi' > flag was created because of this particular issue. That flag defines > that the tests is only valid in that specific DPI setting and may not > work in other DPI settings. I try to follow as strictly as possible the assumptions for the CSS 2.1 test suite. So, Zooming: I never use this, never test this, never bother with such feature and there is nothing mentioned about zooming in the test suite assumptions. I am not sure CSS 2.1 testsuite testcases should still be workable and reliable if zoom feature (magnification of the whole webpage, not just text size increase) is activated. HighDPI: there is now 8777 test entries in the test suite now. I personally only test with 96dpi. If we have to start testing with zooming and/or with various dpi settings, then such kind of testing will require appropriate software for such kind of testing. >> What is unacceptable is that a few testcases expect user agents to be >> able to >> render distance like 2.54mm (9.6px) or 15.24mm (or 57.6px) precisely >> and >> then ask/invite the tester to check if there is red in the page. >> >> There is no normative restraint or requirement regarding how fraction >> of a >> pixel is supposed to be handled by user agents. Each/all user agents >> have >> implementation limits and various capability limitations. > > If there are cases that have this fractional pixel problem let me know. If I see another testcase with such fractional pixel problem, I will let you know. > I know I have been trying to track all of them down and fix them. Yes, Arron, you have. http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20100127/html4/margin-006.htm is one example which was reported in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Jan/0062.html and it was corrected in http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_8/margin-006.htm Regarding the 57.6px example, please consult http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Feb/0030.html and look for "top: 0.6in;" in http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20100127/html4/vertical-align-116.htm http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_10/vertical-align-116.xht One last comment. Specifically regarding Microsoft's line-height testcases: there are lots of testcases inviting the tester to compare 2 small black boxes' height and then establish if the 2 small black boxes are the same height (e.g.: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_10/line-height-002.htm I personally believe that those testcases are definitely not ideal. best regards, Gérard Talbot -- Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ CSS 2.1 test suite (alpha 1; January 27th 2010): http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/20100127/html4/toc.htm CSS 2.1 test suite contributors: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 18:51:09 UTC