- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:18:30 -0700
- To: "Simon Fraser" <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: "Public CSS 2.1 test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
> active-selector-002 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/active-selector-002.htm > Test does not state whether visible red is a failure. Simon, I agree with you that the red in that active-selector-002.htm testcase does not help at all and will confuse unneedlessly. > It's unclear what > "these links" refers to. > > background-alpha-001 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/background-alpha-001.htm > It's not possible to judge whether the alpha PNS is being rendered > correctly, so the test is not self-documenting. Plus it makes me go > blind. > > background-alpha-002 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/background-alpha-002.htm That background-alpha-002.htm testcase definitely needs to be adjusted. > background-attachment-004 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/background-attachment-004.htm > Crazy test that is hard to judge. Not obvious what "flashes" should look > like background-attachment-004.htm may not be the most accurate testcase or obvious one (like a green square testcase) but it is an OK testcase as far as I'm concerned. > background-position-201 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/background-position-201.htm > States "the diamond should be moving around the edge of the outer > circle", but there is no outer circle visible You must have javascript support enabled. I have not tried this testcase locally. > background-root-018 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/background-root-018.htm > Text is virtually unreadable Agreed. That background-root-018.htm requires adjustments. Here, the needed code adjustments are doable and easy to do. > border-001 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/border-001.htm > Solid box or empty box? Agreed. > c525-font-wt-000 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/c525-font-wt-000.htm > Does not state whether "This sentence should be very light" should be > visibly lighter than normal. > > c527-font-001 > c527-font-002 > c527-font-004 > c527-font-005 > c527-font-007 > c527-font-008 > c527-font-009 > c527-font-10 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/c527-font-001.htm et > al. > These tests include words like "there should be 36px between lines". The > tests need a reference marker of some kind to allow this to be judged. I agree with you. I already said+explained so twice so far in the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Sep/0161.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Jan/0043.html > c5526c-display-000 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/c5526c-display-000.htm > What am I supposed to do with this test? It needs a reference, if that's > the point. (...) The reference ("from this reference rendering,") is mentioned in the text of the testcase. This is acid1 test by the way.. > inline-block-003 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/inline-block-003.htm > Like floats-126 etc, needs to say what should happen on window resize. > Has a typo: "rustulting". Agree that inline-block-003.htm needs to define what should happen on a window resize. > inlines-003 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/inlines-003.htm > Not self-describing (what should happen on resize?). I agree with your comment: that inlines-003.htm testcase requires IMO adjustements. > inlines-004 > inlines-005 > inlines-006 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/inlines-004.htm et > al. > "The paragraph of Xs below should remain perfectly aligned." Aligned > with what? Aligned with the baseline of letters, I would presumed. > I think it means that the Xs should always lie on a grid. > > lang-selector-005 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/lang-selector-005.htm > Missing the http flag? > > margin-collapse-160 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/margin-collapse-160.htm > Should say that the first page is blank and 3 pages are expected (if, > indeed, that is the intent). > > page-break-margins-000 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/page-break-margins-000.htm > Test contains "[[UNFINISHED]]" > > text-transform-bicameral-009 > text-transform-bicameral-010 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/text-transform-bicameral-009.htm > I think this test should attempt to specify a font that contains the > glyphs on commons OSes. I have no idea what font name to enter to get > the correct glyphs on Mac OS X. That's also what I wondered myself too. What if I do not see the glyphs? Then for which font should I be trying to load as a possible or suitable replacement? One - bold, wild - idea would be for W3C to buy the rights to offer, use code2000 font. Ideally, code2000 would be downloadable just like ahem and code2000 would be a flag just like ahem . "Code2000 is one of the larger fonts available and the latest build has over 60000 glyphs." http://www.code2000.net/code2000_page.htm and we can reach its author/creator. That testcase is missing the dom flag: <meta name="flags" content=""> > I have entered these notes in the wiki: > <http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/issues> > > Simon regards, Gérard -- Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ CSS 2.1 test suite (RC2; October 1st 2010): http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/toc.html CSS 2.1 test suite contributors: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 21:19:38 UTC