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

RE: [RC3] background-position-202 and use of comma; 5 testcases with invalid flag missing

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 12:09:33 -0700
Message-ID: <d0d408ee5e77979fcabfc8e5485ce9a7.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, "Alan Gresley" <alan@css-class.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

Le Lun 1 novembre 2010 17:33, Arron Eicholz a écrit :


> The actual scenario being
> tested is that commas are not supported in CSS2.1. However in CSS3 they
> are supported and the case needs to handle both scenarios somehow.
> For instance the reason I changed the case to this was because IE9 now
> supports CSS3 backgrounds & borders and the case was failing. It however
> wasn't failing because IE9 was incorrect. It was failing because the
> CSS3 specs now support a syntax that used to be invalid. This then makes
> the case incorrect for new implementations. This is why I put the
> additional ".positive .control' rule in so the case could work in CSS3
> and be ignored in CSS 2.1.
> I'm not sure what the best course of action is here. Since we have
> created a compatibility issue within CSS 2.1 and CSS3 specs. It was
> necessary for the expansion of CSS but puts us in a bit of a bind with
> the testing side of things.

I have examined several testcases in section 4.2 and 4.3
and believe that we have not testcase-ed situations (except for rect())
where commas is involved to separate values and where they should not be
involved for blank-white-space separated list of values.


- color: rgb(255 128 0);  instead of rgb(255, 128, 0);
- if 1 comma is missing like rgb(255, 128 0) ?
- margin: 5px, 10px; instead of margin: 5px 10px;
- font: 20px, ahem; insead of font: 20px ahem;

I think it is because the spec in sections 4.2 and 4.3 has not
sufficiently or explicitly covered such situations.

As for this tescase:


  background-image: url("support/diamond.png");
  background-position: 50%, 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%,

the proper parsing should match the first value (50%), then strip the
rest of the list (, 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%)
and then assume 'center' for the missing vertical background-position.
Such parsing process should end up (result) to be the same here for CSS
2.1 and CSS 3 although for different reasons. CSS 2.1 does not allow
more than 2 values for background-position and such list of
background-position values should be blank-white-space separated. So,
CSS 2.1 would drop everything starting from the first comma until the
end of the list.
CSS 3 allows more than 2 values and the use of "n" commas but not if
there is less than "n+1" background-images. The excess has to be


5 RC3 testcases with invalid flag missing:


a negative border-width will trigger a parsing error; the CSS validator
will also report such error.

a negative border-width will trigger a parsing error; the CSS validator
will also report such error.

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/padding-009.htm a
negative padding will trigger a parsing error; the CSS validator will
also report such error.

a negative padding-top (-20px) will trigger a parsing error; the CSS
validator will also report such error.

regards, Gérard
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 test suite (RC3; October 27th 2010):

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 19:10:10 UTC

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