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

Re: [css3-ui] cursor image format tests

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:16 +0100
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BEAF0CC1-2FE8-47EA-82A3-25810DE55C16@rivoal.net>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
>>>> "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.

In the spec, there are cross-links, that should make it a bit more obvious than
when the plain text is pasted into a mail. That said, if you have a suggestion
for a short note which would summarize what this means without mostly repeating
the normative prose, it would probably be a nice thing to include.

>> 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.

There's a bit of background info on compat in this mail:
http://www.w3.org/mid/D7A72232-1575-4283-8C25-FD7E49E0DC00@rivoal.net

This could give you ideas for tests or environments in which to run your tests.

> 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.

Completely agree.

> Thanks for your helpful comments, Florian

My pleasure. You took the time to write a bunch of test on something I'm working
on. Reviewing them is the least I can do.

 - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 13:58:41 UTC

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