W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > October 2012

background-size-023 seems incorrect (Re: New tests submission for css3 background-clip/-origin/-size)

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:49:47 -0400
Message-ID: <cceb4a501ad374af7d55df5ee5b83d8b.squirrel@ed-sh-cp3.entirelydigital.com>
To: "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "Christensen, Kenneth" <kenneth.christensen@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 13 octobre 2012 5:09, Zhang, Zhiqiang a écrit :

> Review is appreciated:
> https://test.csswg.org/shepherd/search/testcase/author/intel/status/submitted/


<meta name="assert" content="Check if 'background-size' is '50% auto'
and 'background-clip is 'padding-box' that it stretches the image so
that exactly two copies fit horizontally" />

The background-image is stretched[1] from 60px (width) to 75px (which is
half of the width of padding-box) and then it gets repeated horizontally
because the initial value for 'background-repeat' is 'repeat'.

So the test would still pass if it had been
background-size: 13% auto;
background-size: 23% auto;
background-size: 13% auto;
or even without any background-size declaration.

This test will not fail in only-CSS1-capable browsers.

Because the green image is undifferentiated and undifferentiable, the
number of horizontal copies of the image is impossible to visualize and
is not really relevant in the test anyway.

[1]: I now understand why the assert text uses the verb "stretch". I
missed that in my previous email.

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, 14 October 2012 00:50:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:18 UTC