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

Re: [RC6] abspos-010 test: 5 new margin-collapse-012 tests

From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:34:13 +0200
To: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Message-ID: <op.wkex7bv7bunlto@oyvinds-desktop>
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 03:20:24 +0200, Gérard Talbot  
<css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:

> [RC6]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/abspos-010.htm
> [nightly-unstable]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/abspos-010.htm
> If you examine this test with various browsers, you'll notice a
> difference of rendering (height of green area):
> Opera 12.02, Chrome 21.0.1180.89, Safari 5.1.7, Konqueror 4.9.0 all
> render a 48px wide by 48px tall green square.
> Firefox 15.0 and IE8 render a 48px wide by 64px tall green rectangle.
> The difference is due to how vertical margins are supposed to be
> rendered: the 2em margin-top of the abs. pos. table (.fixed) should
> *not* collapse with margin-bottom of <p>. So, Firefox 15.0 and IE8 are
> correct.

I disagree with this part. The ".fixed" table is absolutely positioned and  
has top:auto, so  
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-height says the  
vertical position should be determined as if position had been static (and  
float:none; clear:none). In that case the margins *would* collapse.

Of course, the part "user agents are free to make a guess at its probable  
position" means Firefox and IE can't be said to be violating the spec  

> So, I revisited
> [RC6]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/margin-collapse-012.htm
> [nightly-unstable]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/margin-collapse-012.htm
> and noticed that a few more tests could be submitted to better cover
> possibilities:
> With margin-bottom:
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/margin-collapse-012a.xht
> With a collapsed-through element:
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/margin-collapse-012b.xht
> With with margin-top (with an abs. pos. table):
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/margin-collapse-012c.xht
> With margin-bottom (with an abs. pos. table):
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/margin-collapse-012d.xht
> With a collapsed-through element (with an abs. pos. table):
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/gtalbot/submitted/margin-collapse-012e.xht

I haven't examined all these in detail, but I think they are wrong because  
of the above.

> abspos-010 test seems wrong too because table-layout: fixed does not
> apply if (at minimum) width of table is not specified... and the test
> uses a table that has 1 single row which has 1 single cell..

Well, not really wrong, although the .fixed part seems to test the fixed  
table layout section more than it does the abs. pos. one.

> Right now, I think this test is not good, not trustworthy because it
> does not achieve the original goal/intent of the test. Such test, as
> designed, does not demonstrate the goal of the test.

It should probably just refrain from relying on auto abs.pos. position,  
since that doesn't seem relevant. (The tables could be wrapped in a  
relatively-positioned div, "top:0; left: 0" be set in the "table"  
declaration block and "margin-" be deleted from the ".fixed" block or  
something like that.)

Though with the apparent goal of the test being to check that "Absolutely  
positioned tables must shrink wrap", it is unfortunate that "CSS 2.1 does  
not define the exact algorithm" for shrink-to-fit...

Øyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 09:34:45 UTC

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