W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [css3-ui] cursor image format tests

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:41:55 +0100
Message-ID: <754415653.20150324144155@w3.org>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Hello Florian,

Tuesday, March 24, 2015, 1:52:53 PM, you wrote:

>>> 1) Since you're testing for various image formats, I'll first note
>>> we haven't yet added anything to the specification regarding
>>> formats. (Rossen should get back to us this Wednesday, and we'll know more then).
>> 
>> Yes, I know. And this had previously hindered writing such tests.
>> 
>> The point of making the tests was to allow an informed, test-based decision as to
>> what the spec should actually require in terms of image formats. I
>> would then update the tests for those formats which are not mandatory.

> If you're going down that path, testing various SVG modes would be quite good as well.
> https://svgwg.org/specs/integration/#processing-modes
> I believe that Chrome and Firefox support the secure static mode (which Tab and I were
> proposing to make a MUST), while Safari supports the secure animated mode (which we
> were proposing as a SHOULD).

I agree that these modes are ripe for testing here.

>>>> 009   PNG image with css-supplied hotspot, relative URL, no fallback.
>> 
>>> This test is incorrect. Per the spec's grammar, a fallback is
>>> required. You should change the description of the test to: "The
>>> test passes if, when moved inside the pale green rectangle, the
>>> cursor does not change", include "invalid" in <meta name="flags"
>>> content, and change the assertion to "Test checks that a fallback cursor is required."
>> 
>> My bad. I thought that fallback was optional (I think it used to be,
>> for the cursor property).

> It's been mandatory since the 1998 PR of CSS2.0, but it was
> optional in the 1998 WD (and in the 1997 WD, you could not have a
> fallback). So you're correct, but I am not sure whether to praise
> your memory, or to suggest you chose a slightly newer draft to work from when writing tests :)

Its ok, I know you well enough that "read the damn spec, Chris" is
appropriate. Should not trust to memory like that.

>>> "The default object size for cursor images is a UA-defined size
>>> that should be based on the size of a typical cursor on the UA’s operating system.
>> 
>>> The concrete object size is determined using the default sizing
>>> algorithm. If an operating system is incapable of rendering a cursor
>>> above a given size, cursors larger than that size must be shrunk to
>>> within the OS-supported size bounds, while maintaining the cursor image’s intrinsic ratio, if any."
>> 
>> Hmm, the default sizing algorithm is that wierd 150 x 300 px thing?
>> Which is then shrunk down to "typical" cursor size?

> No, that's not that one. It's this one, which is much less silly:

> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#default-sizing-algorithm

> Relevant quote:

>> [...]
>> If the specified size has no constraints:
>>  - If the object has an intrinsic height or width [...]
>>  - Otherwise, its size is resolved as a contain constraint against the default object size. 

Where default object size is, here, the default cursor size. I can buy
that, but wonder if the trail is sufficiently clear for implementors
to also see that and implement it.

>>> If a browser has deficient
>>> support for some variants of PNG (or .cur, or whatever), it is
>>> useful to know and to get it fixed, but do we want to hold it
>>> against them in the context of the css3-ui spec?
>> 
>> As examples, Firefox correctly renders the PNG images when used on the
>> HTML img element and when included with css :before content, but
>> renders some of them incorrectly (double gamma correction or no gamma
>> correction, depending on color type) when used as cursors.
>> 
>> I was previously unaware of this flaw and it would not be exposed by
>> just testing image formats, only by testing image cursors as well. So
>> for interop, clearly these tests have value. Once they are reviewed
>> and show up in the CSS3 UI testsuite, I can raise a bug on Firefox,
>> pointing to the ones that fail.

> Fair enough. To be clear, I want the tests of the image formats *using cursor*
> to exist, I was just not sure which was the right host for them. But if the WG
> and the process are conformable having them in the css-ui test suite, I'm good
> with that, as it does fulfill the criteria you mentioned.

OK great.

> I'll also note that cursors are somewhat special, and there may be platform
> limitations as to what you can do. The spec mentions one about size,

Yes, I see that Safari used to have a max size of 50x50 but now allows
at least 64x64 for example. In general I have used 32 or 64 as being
big enough to see. After reading the spec more closely (note to self)
it may be worth having some tests that probe behaviour with slightly
larger and ridiculously large sizes.

>  but I wouldn't
> be surprised if there were some about color bit depth or gamma. That said,
> if there are such limitations, having tests will expose them, and then we can
> add relevant wording to the spec to say how to deal with them.

Exactly.

In general, I think we need to tie testing and spec writing more
closely together. Have exploratory tests earlier to inform spec
development, with the expectation that tests and spec may need to
change over time.

Thanks for your helpful comments, Florian


-- 
Best regards,
 Chris Lilley, Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 13:41:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:21 UTC