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

RE: [RC3] background-position-202 invalid; comma not a valid separator in CSS 2.1

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:21:05 +0000
To: "css21testsuite@gtalbot.org" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <07349ECFC3608F48BC3B10459913E70B0C5F58EC@TK5EX14MBXC134.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:01 PM Gérard Talbot wrote:
> A number of browsers (except Firefox 3.6.11; I have not checked with
> IE8) fail
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/background-position-
> 202.htm
> because comma is being used as a syntaxical separator for background-
> position values. This is invalid CSS 2.1.
> Reduced testcase:
> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/background-
> position-202.htm
> CSS validation (CSS 2.1 profile):
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-
> validator/validator?uri=http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21t
> estsuite/background-position-
> 202.htm&warning=2&profile=css21&usermedium=all&lang=en
> Validation report:
> 14 	.positive .control 	Value Error : background-position , is an
> incorrect operator : 50%,0% 50%,0%
> 15 	.case.t10 .test 	Value Error : background-position , is an incorrect
> operator : 50%,center 50%,center

This test is designed to be forward compatible with CSS3. In order to be compatible with CSS3 syntax, which we changed, the tests needs to have the additional style rules ".postive .control" and ".case.t10 .test". If these rules are not in the test then the test cannot be used for CSS3 as well.

This issue is more of an issue with the CSS3 spec not being compatible with CSS2.1 but it should not invalidate this tests in any way. If browsers are failing this test then they actually have a bug in either parsing or their implementation of CSS 2.1 background-position or CSS3 background-position.

I do not think this case should be changed since it is a good test and needs to cover all the scenarios.

Potentially the case could be split out and put into its own case. If that is done, that new case with those rules, how do we flag the file. Its invalid for CSS 2.1 but valid for CSS3. This sounds like something we would have to special case for building CSS3 test suite.

Arron Eicholz
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 23:21:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:52 UTC