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

Re: Review Report on sections 9.1.x to 9.2.3 ~= 78 testcases

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:09:03 -0700
Message-ID: <56fb535bab1b239b0d6106bbff12dde3.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Cc: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>

>> **************************
>> Section 9.1.1 The viewport
>> **************************


>> ----------------------
>> Author: Boris Zbarsky
>> From
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-append-001.htm
>> to
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/block-in-inline-whitespace-001b.htm
>> (60 testcases)
>> and
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/table-in-inline-001.htm
>> have not been reviewed for several reasons:
>> - absence of expected results, clear pass/fail conditions
> These are reftests. Their pass/fail condition is matching the
> appropriate
> reference, which is linked from the "Refs" column of the table of
> contents.

I noticed the "Refs" table column header much later. At first, I barely
noticed it or did not pay attention to it.
I saw the equal sign but did not, at first, think that this was a link
of some sort.

>> ----------------------
>> Author: Boris Zbarsky
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/run-in-basic-001.htm
>> The assert text says:
>> "There must be no nodes in the DOM between the run-in and the
>> following
>> block.">
>> but section 9.2.3 says
>> "
>> If *a* sibling block box (that does not float and is not absolutely
>> positioned) follows the run-in box (...)
>> "
>> so, it seems like it does not have to be the very first following
>> block:
>> it could be another.
>> The assert text should be corrected.
>> Rejected
> Changed to
>    Run-ins run into a following block if there is nothing
>    between the run-in and the following block.

"no nodes in the DOM" and "nothing" is actually nuanced by later testcases.

I really think that the spec as worded allowed inline elements (or even
a float or abs.pos to be interposed in source code order) to be between
a run-in and *a* following block sibling.

<div id="enclosing-block">
  <div style="display: run-in;">run-in</div>
  <span>1st inline</span>
  <span>2nd inline</span>
  <div>following block sibling</div>

run-in following block sibling
1st inline 2nd inline

>> ----------------------
>> Author: Boris Zbarsky
>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/run-in-basic-002.htm
>> The assert text says:
>> "There must be                  whitespace in the DOM between the
>> run-in
>> and the following                  block."
>> but I think it should be saying
>> "There can be whitespace in the DOM between the run-in and a following
>> block."
>> Reviewed and approved
> Changed to
>    Run-ins run into a following block if there is collapsed
>    whitespace between the run-in and the following block.

I think I would better understand the assert if it was worded like this:

     A run-in runs into a following block even if there is one (or more)
     collapsable whitespace between the run-in and such following

I think the idea of "even if" or "despite" (or "despite interposition
of") should be in the assert. Anyway, in the testcase, there are more
than 1 collapsed whitespace between the run-in and its following block.

Also, this just occured to me, the "Run-ins" word most likely wants to
identify the type of element, the class of element (therefore the plural
form) ... but, maybe, just to make sure people do not get confused, I
would use the singular form. In the sentence, you have plural run-in
with singular following block.

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 Friday, 17 September 2010 19:09:40 UTC

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