Re: Review Report on sections 9.2.4 to 9.3.2 ~= 169 testcases

On 09/05/2010 03:58 PM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-001.htm
>
> <link rel="help"
> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#display-prop">
> should be removed
>
> and
>
> <link rel="help" title="9.2.1.1 Anonymous block boxes"
> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level">
> <meta name="flags" content="">
> <meta name="assert" content="When an inline box contains a block box,
> the inline box is broken around the block.">
> should be added

Fixed.

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/visuren/block-in-inline-001.xht

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-002.htm
>
> <link rel="help"
> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#display-prop">
> should be removed
>
> and
>
> <link rel="help" title="9.2.1.1 Anonymous block boxes"
> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level">
> <meta name="flags" content="">
> <meta name="assert" content="When an inline box contains a block box,
> the inline box is broken around the block."
> should be added

Fixed.
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/visuren/block-in-inline-002.xht

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-003.htm
>
> To add:
> <meta name="flags" content="">
> <meta name="assert" content="">

Fixed. Did not use an empty assert.
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/visuren/block-in-inline-003.xht

>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-004.htm
>
> To add:<meta name="assert" content="">

Fixed. Did not use an empty assert.
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/visuren/block-in-inline-004.xht

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-005.htm
> and
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-006.htm
>
>    <meta name="flags" content="dom">
>
> should be replaced with
>
> <meta name="flags" content="dom interact">

Fixed. Didn't add the other meta information since it doesn't add anything
to what's already there.

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-007.htm
>
>    <meta name="flags" content="dom">
>
> should be replaced with
>
> <meta name="flags" content="">
> <meta name="assert" content="When an inline box contains block boxes,
> the inline box is broken around the blocks.">

Fixed.

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-008.htm
>
>    <meta name="flags" content="dom">
>
> should be replaced with
>
>    <meta name="flags" content="">

Seems to have been fixed.

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/c561-list-displ-000.htm
>
> - There is no class pc defined anywhere.
> - div { color: navy; white-space: nowrap; }
> If all the white-spaces are non-line-wrappable, then all of the&nbsp;
> can be safely removed. As coded, the testcase "overdoes" this aspect.

Fixed.

> To add:
>
> <meta name="flags" content="">
> <meta name="assert" content="">

Added flags.

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/clear-applies-to-000.htm
>
> To add:
>
> <meta name="flags" content="">
> <meta name="assert" content="">

Added the flags, not the assert. Empty asserts are worse than not helpful.
Empty flags means someone has evaluated what the flags should be and concluded
that none are needed. Empty asserts just screw with the build system and add
no useful information to the test.

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Boris Zbarsky
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/display-change-001.htm
>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">
> <meta name="assert" content="">
>
> should be added

Added Content-Script-Type.

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/root-box-002.htm
>
> - several validation markup errors
> - meta assert missing
>
> I spent quite a lot of time on this testcase (it's definitely an edge
> case) and I propose this replacement:
> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/root-box-002.htm

Fixed.
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/hixie/submitted/css2.1/visuren/root-box-002.xht

> ----------------------
>
> Author: Ian Hickson
>
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/root-box-003.htm
>
>   <title>CSS Test: Styling the root element: display:none (page should be
> a big green expanse)</title>
>
>   <style type="text/css">
>     html { display: none; background: green; color: red; }
>
> If it is not supposed to be displayed, then how could it be painted? Why
> should it be painted?
>
> "display of 'none' does not create an invisible box; it creates no box
> at all."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#display-prop
>
> I do not think this testcase should be approved.

This presents an interesting question. The background of the root element
is supposed to be propagated to the canvas; it does not paint on the root
element's box. Hixie's assertion is that it is therefore still painted
even when the root box still exists, which makes sense.

The interesting question is, where would background images be positioned
if the root box doesn't exist? I don't think this testcase is wrong per
spec, but it does have some interesting implications.

~fantasai

Received on Sunday, 12 September 2010 23:04:35 UTC