Re: [RC5, pre-RC6] font-family-024 : its reftest and text assertion

Le Jeu 24 février 2011 16:35, John Daggett a écrit :
> Hi Gérard,
>> 1-
>> <meta name="assert" content="System font names are only allowed with
>> the
>> font shorthand, not in font-family rules">
>> but after the clarification talks we had in the thread
>> font-051/052/053/054/055/056 invalid (system font keywords are ok font
>> families)
>> that is not true
>> 2-
>> The reftest for
>> font-family-name-024
>> is also wrong.
> This isn't quite correct, the other tests were invalid because of
> the odd behavior of the productions involved with the 'font'
> shorthand.  The testcase font-family-name-024 will only be
> invalid for systems containing fonts that match the system font
> names.  This is almost never the case.  So I think it would make
> sense to simply revise the test to include that the test is only
> valid on systems where this is true.  We can include on the test
> page a fontlist containing *quoted* system font names which will
> explicitly say PASS/FAIL concerning this condition.
> System contains no fonts with names that match system font names: PASS
> Does that sound like it makes sense?
> Cheers,
> John Daggett

John, it still does not make sense.

Point 2-

The test has 7 <p>s but its reftest uses one <p>. How could that be? ...
regardless of validity of css rules.

Point 1-

Everything I was emailed in october 2010 now contradicts this
font-family-name-024 test

The declaration:
  font: 32px caption;
is equivalent to:
  font: initial;
  font-size: 32px;
  font-family: caption;
and is perfectly valid.

While "caption" in `font: caption` has a special meaning, it does not
have one in `font: 32px caption`. It's just like `font: 32px Verdana`.

'caption' is a perfectly valid value of <'font-family'>


Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 test suite (RC5; January 11th 2011):

CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:

Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 01:51:47 UTC