- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:59:48 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
> I don't think the text in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-unicode-bidi is
> precise enough to imply that unicode-bidi, applied to an img, must
> affect that img's alternate text. This is particularly true since
> images are replaced elements, and Chapter 3 describes replaced
> elements as outside the scope of the CSS formatting model.
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/bidi-alt-001.htm
David,
Then such verdict/policy should apply to other testcases trying to style
the alternate text as well.
When I reviewed inlines-009.htm and inlines-010.htm, I said
[
there is no normative rule on how replaced element should
be displayed.
{
How a replaced element's content is rendered is not defined by this
specification. Rendered content may also be alternate text for an
element (e.g., the value of the XHTML "alt" attribute)
}
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#defs
(...)
]
Now in RC2, those inlines-009.htm and inlines-010.htm have been updated
(to use the Ahem font) but the same issue is there (for the - rightmost
- 4th box using <img src="404" alt="ÉÉÉ">).
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/inlines-009.htm
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/inlines-010.htm
regards, Gérard
--
Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/
CSS 2.1 test suite (RC2; October 1st 2010):
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101001/html4/toc.html
CSS 2.1 test suite contributors:
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2010 01:00:56 UTC