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

Re: Review Report on section 8.4 (Padding property): c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:50:16 -0700
Message-ID: <03426bb97b60acb5ac8c9cb99509307a.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Cc: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> On 09/09/2010 02:13 PM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
>>>> Author: Ian Hickson
>>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm
<meta name="flags" content="ahem">
>>>> should be replaced with
>>>> <meta name="flags" content="ahem invalid">
>>> Fixed.
>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/approved/css2.1/src/css1/c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm
>>>> A font-size 16px version of this test is available.
>>> ?
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c5508-ipadn-b-003.htm
> I think the 12px version is better, because it doesn't require
> use of a repeating decimal for the inches. :)

I don't like fractions like 0.16667 in any testcase either ... or
odd-looking fractions like 1.00542cm .

> Was there a reason you wanted to create a 16px version?
> ~fantasai

Well, yes. In order to meet my very own recommendations which I emailed
on september 25th 2007 with subject line:
"CSS 2.1 Test suite: minimal font size problem and issue"
I sent it to Ian Hickson but also to you. That email had IMO a few good
reasons to create 16px version.

What appears in
is not the email I sent but only Ian Hickson's reply to it.

Re: Added line breaking, page breaking, and minimum font size assumptions

regards, Gérard
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 test suite (beta 3; August 15th 2010):

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 23:50:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:15 UTC