Re: Preliminary feedback, comments on multicol tests

Le Mer 16 mai 2012 10:51, Øyvind Stenhaug a écrit :
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:37:07 +0200, Gérard Talbot
> <> wrote:

>> Issue 1
>> -------

If Ahem font is reused in the reftest in the same manner, then maybe
this is okay since baseline alignment is not the target of the test.
Personnally, I do not and would not do this.

>> Issue 2
>> -------
>> line 19	widows: 1;
>> 	orphans: 1;
>> I do not understand why widows and orphans have to be specified: is
>> there a need to use, specify 1?
> In this case it doesn't look like it's necessary.
>> If/Assuming these declarations are
>> needed, then shouldn't the test be flagged as paged?
> The "paged" flag means "Only valid for paged media". I believe there is
> one or more case where such declarations *are* needed, to allow for
> column
> breaking after the first line and/or before the last line of a block.
> That
> doesn't mean the tests aren't valid for non-paged media.

Indeed, it does not mean that the tests are not valid for non-paged
media. I am saying I do not see why widows and orphans is specified in
that test; it's not necessary, it looks to me to be 2 extraneous

Issue 3

To a human, Firefox 12.0, Chrome 19.0.1084.46, Safari 5.1.7 and
Konqueror 4.8.3 FAIL these tests.

To a machine/software running automated tests-reftests checking, Firefox
12.0, Chrome 19.0.1084.46, Safari 5.1.7 and Konqueror 4.8.3 PASS these

Their correspondent/associated reftests

will create false positives; the reftest is not reliable.

I'm afraid there are MORE tests versus reftests like these.

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 Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:40:40 UTC