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

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.

Regards,

John Daggett

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 03:51:13 UTC