- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:31:29 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "Arron Eicholz" <arron.eicholz@microsoft.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
> On Friday 2010-10-15 21:12 +0000, Arron Eicholz wrote: >> According to section 15.8 of the CSS 2.1 spec it clearly >> identifies that the values for 'caption', 'icon', 'menu', >> 'message-box', 'small-caption' and 'status-bar' cannot be mixed >> with any other font values in the font shorthand. The shorthand >> clearly identifies this restriction by using a single bar '|' >> meaning 'or' and all the individual font properties are grouped by >> the [ ]. This would mean 'font: 32pt caption' is not valid and >> must be ignored. > > No, that's not what it means. > > It's just repeating what's already specified in the syntax, which is > that you can have either the syntax: > > [ <'font-style'> || <'font-variant'> || <'font-weight'> ]? > <'font-size'> [ / <'line-height'> ]? <'font-family'> > > or you can have one of the system font keywords. > > However, 'caption' is a perfectly valid value of <'font-family'>, so > '32pt caption' matches the complex production given. > >> The cases are valid cases and no change needs to be made to the >> cases from what I can see. > > They are not valid. > > On Friday 2010-10-15 14:16 -0700, "GĂ©rard Talbot" wrote: >> Please verify again the spec. >> >> " >> Value: [ [ <'font-style'> || <'font-variant'> || <'font-weight'> ]? >> <'font-size'> [ / <'line-height'> ]? <'font-family'> ] | caption | >> icon >> | menu | message-box | small-caption | status-bar | inherit >> " >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-shorthand >> >> >> "A bar (|) separates two or more alternatives: exactly one of them >> must >> occur." >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/about.html#property-defs > > Exactly. > > But the alternative being used in this case is the first > alternative, > > [ <'font-style'> || <'font-variant'> || <'font-weight'> ]? > <'font-size'> [ / <'line-height'> ]? <'font-family'> > > The value given contains a <'font-size'> and a <'font-family'>. > > > On Friday 2010-10-15 14:26 -0700, "GĂ©rard Talbot" wrote: >> " >> System fonts may only be set as a whole; that is, the font family, >> size, >> weight, style, etc. are all set at the same time. These values may >> then >> be altered individually if desired. >> " > > The test is not specifying a system font. It's specifying a > font-family for a font named 'caption'. > >> So, font: 32px caption; >> is wrong and invalid. The parsing system would not know which font >> size >> to use: 8px (usually the default font size for caption) or 32px. > > The font-size for the caption system font isn't relevant, because > this isn't specifying a system font. It's specifying a font-family > called 'caption'. David, I understand very well what you are saying. But there is definitely a potential source of confusion. " Font family names that happen to be the same as a keyword value ('inherit', 'serif', 'sans-serif', 'monospace', 'fantasy', and 'cursive') must be quoted to prevent confusion with the keywords with the same names. " But such escape mechanism does not apply to system font keywords: caption, icon, menu, message-box, small-caption and status-bar. You're saying it does not need to as it can be self-consistent here. Depending on the declaration by itself, the CSS parsing should be able to figure out if, say, caption is a system font reserved name or a font type name correctly being declared and this, without caption being quoted. >> > font: initial; >> > font-size: 32px; >> > font-family: caption; >> >> No it's not. > > Yes, see above. > >> > and is perfectly valid. The 'caption' in this case is NOT a system >> > font keyword, but it's perfectly legal. >> >> To be a valid font-family and not a system font keyword, caption would >> have to be quoted and should be quoted to indicate that it is not the >> system font. There is a gap, a flaw in the spec wrt this. > > If you think it should have to be quoted, you're welcome to raise an > issue with the spec, but the spec is consistent as it is today. Ok. I will think about raising such issue. I just removed those font-051/052/053/054/055/056 testcases right now. Revision version 1504 The .xht version of these testcases have been removed in my directory: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/ The (orphanated, orphans) .htm version of those 6 testcases will be removed during this night. 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 Friday, 15 October 2010 22:32:06 UTC