- From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:20:51 +0000
- To: "css21testsuite@gtalbot.org" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- CC: Public CSS test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:59 PM Gérard Talbot wrote: > Le Mer 5 janvier 2011 9:27, Arron Eicholz a écrit : > > On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:26 PM Gérard Talbot wrote: > >> > >> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-size-091.htm > >> > >> Would it be possible to modify the testcase so that #parent's > >> font-size does not exceed 255px? > >> > >> Some browsers fail this test and not because percentage value of > >> font-size is not supported. > > > > Fixed in RC5. Changed size to be 200px. It makes the comparison tough > > because the boxes are now 2x2 > > > Arron, > > http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15 > /font-size-091.htm > > http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/microsoft/submitted/Chapter_15 > /font-size-091.xht > > Would it be possible to use a larger value than 1%.., say 10% or 20% ? > Is there a particular reason as to why 1% has to be used, tested? > The reason for 1% or 1px or -1px etc... is I am testing boundary cases for all scenarios. Boundary cases are... Minimum minus one Minimum Minimum plus one Nominal value (I usually use a comparable value to 1in) Maximum minus one Maximum Maximum plus one I have also included signed values containing the plus sign (+) to test for string length issues. I usually add a plus (+) to zero (0), nomimal and maximum. > > but it is now working for Konqueror. > > The font size setting (medium and minimal) is in pt unit, not in px and it can > not go any below than 2pt (rounded up as 3px). So, right now, the testcase > fails in Konqueror 4.5.5 because of that. Even if the testcase was passed and > even if the 2 boxes were clearly apart from each other, it's very difficult to > compare really small boxes. > Also note that CSS does not define a maximum value for font size thus the size that I am using now is totally valid per the spec. In fact it was valid before and produced a more obvious result than what I am using now. -- Thanks, Arron Eicholz
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 00:21:33 UTC