Re: XHTML as XML

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > 
> > We will be replacing that with:
> > 
> > # UAs may apply the 'overflow' property set on the root element to # 
> > the viewport (instead of the root element). HTML UAs may also apply # 
> > the 'overflow' property from the BODY element to the viewport.
> > 
> > (That was post-CR issue 50.)
> 
> If it is MAY instead of MUST authors are never certain if the page will 
> look as expected and they might need to apply additional properties to 
> be sure the page is displayed as intended.
> 
> (And if that is the case, it might not make sense to have this 
> "suggestion" in the first place.)

It's a MAY because we don't want to have anything but MAYs when it comes 
to the viewport. It's right on the edge of what is within the scope of the 
spec.


> > > To be clear, this testcase is now INVALID:
> > > 
> > >  <http://annevankesteren.nl/test/css/p/overflow/xhtml-html.xml>
> > > 
> > > ...?
> > 
> > Well, it's always been invalid HTML. :-)
> 
> Heh. (Note the MIME type.)

Sorry, I meant, it's always been invalid XHTML.


> > Gecko renders that test correctly. There are no explicit pass criteria 
> > in that test but assuming you expected no red to appear, then it is 
> > indeed wrong.
> 
> Although my test case is invalid per section 2.5 and 3, section 4.1.2 of 
> the CSS2.1 Test Case Authoring Guidelines does indicate that a "green 
> page" with no red is a good thing

It's a fine test, it's just good to actually say what the pass condition 
is anyway. Just saying "This page should be green." is enough.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 16:07:33 UTC