- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:34:05 -0700
- To: "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Saturday 2010-10-16 13:28 -0700, "Gérard Talbot" wrote: > > > These testcases (note 095 and 096 have different authors): > > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/outline-width-095.htm > > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/xhtml1/outline-width-095.xht > > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/outline-width-096.htm > > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/xhtml1/outline-width-096.xht > > are invalid because they assume that the outline is always drawn > > around the border box. In particular, the spec says: > > # Outlines may be non-rectangular. For example, if the element is > > # broken across several lines, the outline is the minimum outline > > # that encloses all the element's boxes. In contrast to borders, > > # the outline is not open at the line box's end or start, but is > > # always fully connected if possible. > > --http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ui.html#dynamic-outlines > > > > In Gecko's case, we currently interpret "encloses all the element's > > boxes" as enclosing the outlines of descendants. (We might change > > that, though, but it's still a valid behavior.) > > David, > > I understand that "encloses all all the element's boxes" can mean > enclosing the outlines of descendants, therefore making the black > outline in outline-width-095 twice thicker than - maybe or possibly - > expected, and overlapping the pass condition text. > > But I do not understand why this has anything to do with > outline-width-096 and why it makes 096 invalid. Please elaborate. > > #parent's outline-style is none. And computed value of outline-width is > " > '0' if the outline style is 'none' > " > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ui.html#dynamic-outlines > > Even if my testcase is invalid, the statement of the spec should still > be testable, testcase-able. Sorry, you're right; testcase 096 is fine. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Saturday, 16 October 2010 20:34:36 UTC