RE: [RC3] font-family-rule-017 (was RE: review of Microsoft CSS 2.1 font tests)

On Monday, January 17, 2011 7:50 PM John Daggett wrote:
> In response to a comment by Gérard, Arron wrote:
> 
> > > 4-
> > > <p>Test passes if there is either a letter "X" or a box below.</p>
> > >
> > > This seems to mean that parsing the declaration and to render either
> > > white space  or Times New Roman is acceptable.
> > >
> > > If we want to test how accurately browsers implement unquoted font
> > > family name with sequence(s) of white spaces (before and/or inside
> > > and/or after), then such pass condition is laxist, lenient, tolerant
> > > for no reasons. In fact, with such pass condition, the testcase as
> > > coded can never fail.
> >
> > It unfortunately needs to be relaxed like that because it is optional
> > to collapse the space. It's a 'should' but not a 'must'. So it should
> > pass if the space collapses and matches or does not collapse and does
> > not match.
> 
> I agree with Gérard, the pass condition for font-family-rule-17.xht is
> incorrect, seeing an 'X' should be considered a fail condition.  I would propose
> revising the wording to:
> 
>   Test passes if there is a box below and fails if the
>   letter "X" is displayed.
> 
> The latest revision of the CSS 2.1 spec contains very specific wording relating
> to the handling of spacing in unquoted font family names:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#propdef-font-family

> 
>   Font family names must either be given quoted as strings, or
>   unquoted as a sequence of one or more identifiers. This means
>   most punctuation characters and digits at the start of each token
>   must be escaped in unquoted font family names.
>     .
>     .
>     .
>   If a sequence of identifiers is given as a font family name, the
>   computed value is the name converted to a string by joining all
>   the identifiers in the sequence by single spaces.
> 
> I think this implies very clearly that white spaces within unquoted font family
> names *must* be collapsed before lookup, this is not optional behavior.  I
> don't see where a "should"
> requirement is suggested in this wording.
> 

I have corrected the test case to match your recommendations.

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 22:31:03 UTC