- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:51:10 -0800
- To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
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) >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2010Oct/0171.html >> >> 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. http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/font-family-name-024.htm (RC5) http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/font-family-name-024.htm http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024.htm http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024.xht http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024-ref.htm http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/fontreftests/font-family-name-024-ref.xht 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'> ] etc... Gérard -- Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ CSS 2.1 test suite (RC5; January 11th 2011): http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110111/html4/toc.html CSS 2.1 test suite contributors: http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 01:51:47 UTC