- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:51:11 -0500
- To: "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
- Cc: "Public CSS testsuite mailing list@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "Santos, Thiago" <thiago.santos@intel.com>, "Zhang, Haili" <haili.zhang@intel.com>, "Yu, Ling L" <ling.l.yu@intel.com>, "Yang, Lei A" <lei.a.yang@intel.com>
Le Sam 10 novembre 2012 0:55, "Gérard Talbot" a écrit : > > Le Ven 9 novembre 2012 3:28, Zhang, Zhiqiang a écrit : >>> >>> Zhiqiang, let me know if you have more tests (and which tests) to >>> review, to approve. >>> >>> Gérard >>> -- >> >> Hi Gerard, >> > >> background-size-002 to 034 (except background-size-008 above) need to >> be >> reviewed again, and to be approved :). > > background-size-009, at line 21: > I changed height: 100px to height: 50px;. This way, if width and height > are not matched correctly and respectively to first and second values, > then the green square will be small and testers will see red. By setting > height: 50px, we reduce risks, chances of false positives; we reduce > chances that a faulty implementation does not get caught by the test. > Approved. > > background-size-011, at line 19: > I changed support/60x60-green.png to support/50x50-green.png for reasons > mentioned regarding Opera 12.10 and Linux inaccurate rounding APIs. > Approved. > > background-size-014, at line 22: > I changed width: 200px for width: 50px so that if the UA applies 45% to > 50px (and not 200px), then the painted green area will be definitely > smaller than 45px; with width: 200px, it would be 90px which is more > than enough to cover the red square, in which case we wouldn't see a > failure. By setting width: 50%, this restricts chances of false > positive. > Approved. > > > background-size-017, at line 23: > If 45% is incorrectly applied on width: 50px, then testers will red. If > 45% is incorrectly applied on width: 200px, then we will *not* see red > (although we won't see a green square but rather a green 90px by 45px > rectangle). So, I replaced width: 200px with width: 50px to maximize > possibilities to notice failures due to incorrect implementation. > Approved. I tried background-size-002, 005, 006, 012, 013, 015, 016, 018, 019 and 020 with IE8 and IE8 passes all those tests. Now, IE8 has no knowledge or understanding of background-size. Therefore, IE8 should fail these tests. So, these tests are not ideal; in fact, they are not adequate! 1) 002, 005, 006: these tests are testing default, initial background-size: so there is nothing to change here. Testing default, initial values is in practice impossible (unless you could edit the UA stylesheet). 2) 012, 013, 015, 016, 018, 019 and 020: these tests could be improved in 2 different ways. Either by setting width to 50px or by using a very small green background-image that would be required by the test to be stretched, enlarged: ideally, this would be /support/1x1-green.png. In all tests, you want the #test-green-overlapping to be - by default - smaller than #ref-red-overlapped. Ideally, when testing background-size, you want tests should fail if background-size is set to 'auto'. I will work on these tests again for you. Gérard -- Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011: http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html CSS 2.1 test suite harness: http://test.csswg.org/harness/ Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 23:51:45 UTC