- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:34:24 -0700
- To: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
On Wednesday 2010-10-13 16:32 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > The tests: > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100917/xhtml1/absolute-replaced-width-016.xht > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100917/xhtml1/absolute-replaced-width-017.xht > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100917/xhtml1/absolute-replaced-width-018.xht > appear to me to be incorrect. > > The svg element in these tests has no intrinsic ratio and no > intrinsic size, since it has no viewBox and no height/width > attributes. (I'd have expected it to be 300x150 as a result, but > our implementation seems to be shrinking it so it fits within the > container. I'm not sure if I'm missing something in the spec or if > that's a bug in our implementation, though. If nobody else is > confident about the rules, I could try to figure out why we're doing > what we're doing.) > > Nonetheless, given the size of the svg element, the blue box should > begin either in the upper *left* corner of the black box, or > actually slightly to the left of that. > > Additionally, in -018, the margin-left and margin-right aren't > actually set to auto as the test assertion says they should be. And I think these problems appear through the other SVG tests in the series as well. It's just this particular triplet is the only triplet that fails as a result of these issues. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 23:34:52 UTC