Re: [RC6] white-space-processing-056: false positives

Le Sam 11 août 2012 21:09, L. David Baron a écrit :
> On Saturday 2012-08-11 19:49 -0400, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
>> Le Sam 11 août 2012 18:19, L. David Baron a écrit :
>> > I don't think the Ahem font provides a glyph for ideographic space,
>> I never considered such possibility; I would not know.
>> > so it seems that you'd get a glyph from a different font -- and I
>> > could imagine the results being substantially different depending on
>> > which font, and whether that font has an ideographic space that's
>> > exactly 1em wide.
>> Well, then I can not explain some browser passing and failing while
>> declaring the same browser default font.
> If the default font you defined also doesn't have an ideographic
> space (which is likely), then it depends on how the browser searches
> the rest of the fonts on the system, which is
> implementation-defined.

Arron, I've labelled this test as "NeedsWork" because

1- Ahem font does not provide, does not have a glyph for ideographic space

2- the default browser font, acting as a fallback in such case, could
also not have a glyph for ideographic space; the proper fallback for the
test is not assured.

The test, in order to be rehabilitated, would need to force the
selection and usage of an installed font that we know uses/has the glyph
for ideographic space.

I am not sure if and how this test can be rehabilitated. A special font
or maybe a variation of the Ahem font would need to be carefully
crafted, I guess, for such test.

Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:

CSS 2.1 test suite harness:

Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:

Received on Sunday, 12 August 2012 04:04:09 UTC