fixed new inline-block alignement test

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

fixed new inline-block alignement test

塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Gérard,

I have fixed the inline-block alignement test in reference to your review^[1]

https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/4d6bad11f62e

Could you review it?

After your review and approval, I will create other variation of inline-block alignment.
Hajime.

--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test

Gérard Talbot-3
Le 2015-07-05 02:25, 塩澤 元 a écrit :

> Gérard,
>
> I have fixed the inline-block alignement test in reference to your
> review^[1]
>
> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/4d6bad11f62e
>
> Could you review it?
>
> After your review and approval, I will create other variation of
> inline-block alignment.
>
> [1]:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2015Jun/0007.html
>
> Hajime.

Here is what I came up with:

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime.xht

Your test:
http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-002.xht

1- (line 15 in your test)
It's always safer to use a numerical line-height (1) instead of a
font-size (1em) because computed line-height is inherited by default; a
numerical line-height will scale with relevant font-size. In your test,
1em was okay since other inline boxes were taller.

2- (lines 24 and 25 in your test)
Creating an asymetrical vertical padding on inline boxes can better
reveal an implementation bug.
I've added a /* comment */ explaining the purpose of such logical
vertical padding

3- (line 26 in your test)
I've removed color: fuchsia.

4- (line 33 in your test)
Since line-height is inherited, then you do not need to redeclare it for
its descendants.

5- (lines 36 and 41 in your test)
I've used id instead of classes for first-line-box and last-line-box

6- (lines 49 and 50 in your test)
Asymetrical vertical padding on that inline plus a /* comment */

If you now load that test into the latest most recent Firefox 42 nightly
build, you can see 2 bugs occuring. The left padding and right padding
on the inline boxes should not affect baseline alignment of text (the
horizontal position of those orange squares with respect to the blue
square) on the dominant baseline... whatever such dominant baseline is
and however how baseline-alignment is implemented.

Adapted reference file:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime-ref.xht

Gérard
--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test

塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Hi Gérard,

I have fixed inline-block alignment test.
https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/865ca430216b

<Change Point>
1. fixed the test while referring to your feedback.

2.added other test case
- for central baseline
-- inline-block-alignment-new-003.xht (vertical-lr + mixed)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-004.xht (vertical-rl + upright)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-005.xht (vertical-lr + upright)
- for alphabetical baseline
-- inline-block-alignment-new-007.xht (vertical-lr + sideways)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-008.xht (vertical-rl + sideways-right)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-right)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht (vertical-rr + sideways-left)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-011.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-left)

3. added ref file
- inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht (for vertical-lr central-baseline)
- inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht (for vertical-lr alphabetical-baseline)

Could you review it?

I have known that sideways-left is at risk now and may be dropped during the CR period^[1].
However, anyway, I have created test for sideways-left because deleting test case is very easy :-)

[1]: "Status of this document" from http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/
> The following features are at-risk, and may be dropped during the CR period:
>    * The sideways-left of text-orientation
>    * The use-glyph-orientation of text-orientation
>    * The digits value of text-combine-upright.
>    * The look-ahead/look-behind sequencing rules for text-combine-upright.


Hajime.


2015-07-06 4:30 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
Le 2015-07-05 02:25, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
Gérard,

I have fixed the inline-block alignement test in reference to your
review^[1]

https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/4d6bad11f62e

Could you review it?

After your review and approval, I will create other variation of
inline-block alignment.

[1]:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2015Jun/0007.html

Hajime.

Here is what I came up with:

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime.xht

Your test:
http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-002.xht

1- (line 15 in your test)
It's always safer to use a numerical line-height (1) instead of a font-size (1em) because computed line-height is inherited by default; a numerical line-height will scale with relevant font-size. In your test, 1em was okay since other inline boxes were taller.

2- (lines 24 and 25 in your test)
Creating an asymetrical vertical padding on inline boxes can better reveal an implementation bug.
I've added a /* comment */ explaining the purpose of such logical vertical padding

3- (line 26 in your test)
I've removed color: fuchsia.

4- (line 33 in your test)
Since line-height is inherited, then you do not need to redeclare it for its descendants.

5- (lines 36 and 41 in your test)
I've used id instead of classes for first-line-box and last-line-box

6- (lines 49 and 50 in your test)
Asymetrical vertical padding on that inline plus a /* comment */

If you now load that test into the latest most recent Firefox 42 nightly build, you can see 2 bugs occuring. The left padding and right padding on the inline boxes should not affect baseline alignment of text (the horizontal position of those orange squares with respect to the blue square) on the dominant baseline... whatever such dominant baseline is and however how baseline-alignment is implemented.

Adapted reference file:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime-ref.xht

Gérard
--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html



--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test

塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Gérard,

I have fixed incorrect padding.
https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/6d9052794a4f

Hajime.


2015-07-11 12:37 GMT+09:00 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime) <[hidden email]>:
Hi Gérard,

I have fixed inline-block alignment test.
https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/865ca430216b

<Change Point>
1. fixed the test while referring to your feedback.

2.added other test case
- for central baseline
-- inline-block-alignment-new-003.xht (vertical-lr + mixed)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-004.xht (vertical-rl + upright)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-005.xht (vertical-lr + upright)
- for alphabetical baseline
-- inline-block-alignment-new-007.xht (vertical-lr + sideways)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-008.xht (vertical-rl + sideways-right)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-right)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht (vertical-rr + sideways-left)
-- inline-block-alignment-new-011.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-left)

3. added ref file
- inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht (for vertical-lr central-baseline)
- inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht (for vertical-lr alphabetical-baseline)

Could you review it?

I have known that sideways-left is at risk now and may be dropped during the CR period^[1].
However, anyway, I have created test for sideways-left because deleting test case is very easy :-)

[1]: "Status of this document" from http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/
> The following features are at-risk, and may be dropped during the CR period:
>    * The sideways-left of text-orientation
>    * The use-glyph-orientation of text-orientation
>    * The digits value of text-combine-upright.
>    * The look-ahead/look-behind sequencing rules for text-combine-upright.


Hajime.


2015-07-06 4:30 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
Le 2015-07-05 02:25, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
Gérard,

I have fixed the inline-block alignement test in reference to your
review^[1]

https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/4d6bad11f62e

Could you review it?

After your review and approval, I will create other variation of
inline-block alignment.

[1]:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2015Jun/0007.html

Hajime.

Here is what I came up with:

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime.xht

Your test:
http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-002.xht

1- (line 15 in your test)
It's always safer to use a numerical line-height (1) instead of a font-size (1em) because computed line-height is inherited by default; a numerical line-height will scale with relevant font-size. In your test, 1em was okay since other inline boxes were taller.

2- (lines 24 and 25 in your test)
Creating an asymetrical vertical padding on inline boxes can better reveal an implementation bug.
I've added a /* comment */ explaining the purpose of such logical vertical padding

3- (line 26 in your test)
I've removed color: fuchsia.

4- (line 33 in your test)
Since line-height is inherited, then you do not need to redeclare it for its descendants.

5- (lines 36 and 41 in your test)
I've used id instead of classes for first-line-box and last-line-box

6- (lines 49 and 50 in your test)
Asymetrical vertical padding on that inline plus a /* comment */

If you now load that test into the latest most recent Firefox 42 nightly build, you can see 2 bugs occuring. The left padding and right padding on the inline boxes should not affect baseline alignment of text (the horizontal position of those orange squares with respect to the blue square) on the dominant baseline... whatever such dominant baseline is and however how baseline-alignment is implemented.

Adapted reference file:
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime-ref.xht

Gérard
--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html



--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]



--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test

Gérard Talbot-3
In reply to this post by 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Le 2015-07-10 23:37, 塩澤 元 a écrit :

> Hi Gérard,
>
> I have fixed inline-block alignment test.
> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/865ca430216b
>
> <Change Point>
> 1. fixed the test while referring to your feedback.
>
> 2.added other test case
> - for central baseline
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-003.xht (vertical-lr + mixed)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-004.xht (vertical-rl + upright)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-005.xht (vertical-lr + upright)
> - for alphabetical baseline
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-007.xht (vertical-lr + sideways)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-008.xht (vertical-rl + sideways-right)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-right)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht (vertical-rr + sideways-left)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-011.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-left)
>
> 3. added ref file
> - inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht (for vertical-lr
> central-baseline)
> - inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht (for vertical-lr
> alphabetical-baseline)
>
> Could you review it?
>
> I have known that sideways-left is at risk now and may be dropped
> during
> the CR period^[1].
> However, anyway, I have created test for sideways-left because deleting
> test case is very easy :-)
>
> [1]: "Status of this document" from
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/
>> The following features are at-risk, and may be dropped during the CR
> period:
>>    * The sideways-left of text-orientation
>>    * The use-glyph-orientation of text-orientation
>>    * The digits value of text-combine-upright.
>>    * The look-ahead/look-behind sequencing rules for
>> text-combine-upright.
>
>
> Hajime.
>
>
> 2015-07-06 4:30 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Le 2015-07-05 02:25, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
>>
>>> Gérard,
>>>
>>> I have fixed the inline-block alignement test in reference to your
>>> review^[1]
>>>
>>> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/4d6bad11f62e
>>>
>>> Could you review it?
>>>
>>> After your review and approval, I will create other variation of
>>> inline-block alignment.
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2015Jun/0007.html
>>>
>>> Hajime.
>>>
>>
>> Here is what I came up with:
>>
>>
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime.xht
>>
>> Your test:
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-002.xht
>>
>> 1- (line 15 in your test)
>> It's always safer to use a numerical line-height (1) instead of a
>> font-size (1em) because computed line-height is inherited by default;
>> a
>> numerical line-height will scale with relevant font-size. In your
>> test, 1em
>> was okay since other inline boxes were taller.
>>
>> 2- (lines 24 and 25 in your test)
>> Creating an asymetrical vertical padding on inline boxes can better
>> reveal
>> an implementation bug.
>> I've added a /* comment */ explaining the purpose of such logical
>> vertical
>> padding
>>
>> 3- (line 26 in your test)
>> I've removed color: fuchsia.
>>
>> 4- (line 33 in your test)
>> Since line-height is inherited, then you do not need to redeclare it
>> for
>> its descendants.
>>
>> 5- (lines 36 and 41 in your test)
>> I've used id instead of classes for first-line-box and last-line-box
>>
>> 6- (lines 49 and 50 in your test)
>> Asymetrical vertical padding on that inline plus a /* comment */
>>
>> If you now load that test into the latest most recent Firefox 42
>> nightly
>> build, you can see 2 bugs occuring. The left padding and right padding
>> on
>> the inline boxes should not affect baseline alignment of text (the
>> horizontal position of those orange squares with respect to the blue
>> square) on the dominant baseline... whatever such dominant baseline is
>> and
>> however how baseline-alignment is implemented.
>>
>> Adapted reference file:
>>
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime-ref.xht
>>

Hajime,

Sorry for the long delay. Here is a preliminary review:

1-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht

You need to swap ( 並び替えます ) the yellow and blue images, like this:


<div>
    <img src="support/swatch-orange.png" width="60" height="60"
alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br /><!--
--><img class="left" src="support/swatch-yellow.png" width="120"
height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><!--
--><img class="right" src="support/swatch-blue.png" width="120"
height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br /><!--
--><img src="support/swatch-orange.png" width="30" height="30"
alt="Image download support must be enabled" /></div>


2-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-005.xht

line 9: (...) and when 'text-orientation' is 'upright', then (...)
line 18:   text-orientation: mixed;

I will check the other files later this week.

Gérard
--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

Gérard Talbot-3
In reply to this post by 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Le 2015-07-10 23:37, 塩澤 元 a écrit :

> Hi Gérard,
>
> I have fixed inline-block alignment test.
> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/865ca430216b
>
> <Change Point>
> 1. fixed the test while referring to your feedback.
>
> 2.added other test case
> - for central baseline
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-003.xht (vertical-lr + mixed)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-004.xht (vertical-rl + upright)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-005.xht (vertical-lr + upright)
> - for alphabetical baseline
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-007.xht (vertical-lr + sideways)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-008.xht (vertical-rl + sideways-right)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-right)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht (vertical-rr + sideways-left)
> -- inline-block-alignment-new-011.xht (vertical-lr + sideways-left)
>
> 3. added ref file
> - inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht (for vertical-lr
> central-baseline)
> - inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht (for vertical-lr
> alphabetical-baseline)
>
> Could you review it?
>
> I have known that sideways-left is at risk now and may be dropped
> during
> the CR period^[1].
> However, anyway, I have created test for sideways-left because deleting
> test case is very easy :-)
>
> [1]: "Status of this document" from
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-writing-modes-3/
>> The following features are at-risk, and may be dropped during the CR
> period:
>>    * The sideways-left of text-orientation
>>    * The use-glyph-orientation of text-orientation
>>    * The digits value of text-combine-upright.
>>    * The look-ahead/look-behind sequencing rules for
>> text-combine-upright.
>
>
> Hajime.
>
>
> 2015-07-06 4:30 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Le 2015-07-05 02:25, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
>>
>>> Gérard,
>>>
>>> I have fixed the inline-block alignement test in reference to your
>>> review^[1]
>>>
>>> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/4d6bad11f62e
>>>
>>> Could you review it?
>>>
>>> After your review and approval, I will create other variation of
>>> inline-block alignment.
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2015Jun/0007.html
>>>
>>> Hajime.
>>>
>>
>> Here is what I came up with:
>>
>>
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime.xht
>>
>> Your test:
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-002.xht
>>
>> 1- (line 15 in your test)
>> It's always safer to use a numerical line-height (1) instead of a
>> font-size (1em) because computed line-height is inherited by default;
>> a
>> numerical line-height will scale with relevant font-size. In your
>> test, 1em
>> was okay since other inline boxes were taller.
>>
>> 2- (lines 24 and 25 in your test)
>> Creating an asymetrical vertical padding on inline boxes can better
>> reveal
>> an implementation bug.
>> I've added a /* comment */ explaining the purpose of such logical
>> vertical
>> padding
>>
>> 3- (line 26 in your test)
>> I've removed color: fuchsia.
>>
>> 4- (line 33 in your test)
>> Since line-height is inherited, then you do not need to redeclare it
>> for
>> its descendants.
>>
>> 5- (lines 36 and 41 in your test)
>> I've used id instead of classes for first-line-box and last-line-box
>>
>> 6- (lines 49 and 50 in your test)
>> Asymetrical vertical padding on that inline plus a /* comment */
>>
>> If you now load that test into the latest most recent Firefox 42
>> nightly
>> build, you can see 2 bugs occuring. The left padding and right padding
>> on
>> the inline boxes should not affect baseline alignment of text (the
>> horizontal position of those orange squares with respect to the blue
>> square) on the dominant baseline... whatever such dominant baseline is
>> and
>> however how baseline-alignment is implemented.
>>
>> Adapted reference file:
>>
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3WritingModes/inline-block-alignment-new-002-Hajime-ref.xht
>>

Hajime,

Sorry for the long delay. Here is a preliminary review:

1-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht

You need to swap ( 並び替えます ) the yellow and blue images, like this:


<div>
    <img src="support/swatch-orange.png" width="60" height="60"
alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br /><!--
--><img class="left" src="support/swatch-yellow.png" width="120"
height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><!--
--><img class="right" src="support/swatch-blue.png" width="120"
height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br /><!--
--><img src="support/swatch-orange.png" width="30" height="30"
alt="Image download support must be enabled" /></div>


2-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-005.xht

line 9: (...) and when 'text-orientation' is 'upright', then (...)
line 18:   text-orientation: mixed;

-- continuation --


3-

     span#orange30
     {
       display: inline-block;


     span#fuchsia30
     {
       display: inline-block;


In all your tests, you have been declaring 'display: inline-block' onto
the smallest Ahem glyph (square) which follows the tested inline-block.
Please explain why. I do not see the need to do this. It does not make
your tests incorrect or unreliable ... but this declaration is
extraneous to me. I would remove this.

4-

<img class="left" src="support/swatch-blue.png" width="120" height="120"
alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><!--
--><img class="right" src="support/swatch-yellow.png" width="120"
height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br />

Please remove class="left" and class="right" from the reference files
http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-002-ref.xht
http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht
as they are not defined and they are not needed.

5-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht and not
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-009's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an irregular
polygon is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not left edge.


6-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht and not
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-010's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an irregular polygon
is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not right edge.

Gérard
--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Gérard,

I have submitted.

https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/74cf2d8eb799

 
Hajime,

Sorry for the long delay. Here is a preliminary review:

1-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht

You need to swap ( 並び替えます ) the yellow and blue images, like this:


<div>
   <img src="support/swatch-orange.png" width="60" height="60" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br /><!--
--><img class="left" src="support/swatch-yellow.png" width="120" height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><!--
--><img class="right" src="support/swatch-blue.png" width="120" height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br /><!--
--><img src="support/swatch-orange.png" width="30" height="30" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /></div> 

I've modified it.
 
2-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-005.xht

line 9: (...) and when 'text-orientation' is 'upright', then (...)
line 18:   text-orientation: mixed;

-- continuation --


I've modified it.


3-

    span#orange30
    {
      display: inline-block;


    span#fuchsia30
    {
      display: inline-block;


In all your tests, you have been declaring 'display: inline-block' onto the smallest Ahem glyph (square) which follows the tested inline-block. Please explain why. I do not see the need to do this. It does not make your tests incorrect or unreliable ... but this declaration is extraneous to me. I would remove this.


I've deleted declaring 'display: inline-block'.

When I created inline-block test,  I thought that all elements must have declaring 'display: inline-block' because the test case is for 'inline-block'...
However, now, I think that this is no need declaring. So I've deleted it.

 
4-

<img class="left" src="support/swatch-blue.png" width="120" height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><!--
--><img class="right" src="support/swatch-yellow.png" width="120" height="120" alt="Image download support must be enabled" /><br />

Please remove class="left" and class="right" from the reference files
http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-002-ref.xht
http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-003-ref.xht
as they are not defined and they are not needed.


I've deleted.
 
5-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht and not inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-009's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an irregular polygon is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not left edge.


6-

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht and not inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-010's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an irregular polygon is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not right edge.

Now I have another thought. Now I think that the reference files must have four pattern for alphabetical baseline testcase.

- (1) vertical-rl + sideways-right (= vertical-rl + sideways)
- (2) vertical-rl + sideways-left
- (3) vertical-lr + sideways-right 
- (4) veritcal-lr + sideways-left (= vertical-lr + sideways)

I've attached the image which represents above all pattern. 
In the image, "ABCDEFG" is the first line in inline-block, "HIJKLMN" is the last line in inline-block.

What do you think about?


Hajime.

--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]

InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG (31K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

Gérard Talbot-3
Le 2015-07-15 19:58, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
> Gérard,
>
> I have submitted.
>
> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/74cf2d8eb799
>
>

Hajime,

>> 5-
>>
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht
>>
>> I believe inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should
>> be
>>
>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht and not
>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
>>
>> and inline-block-alignment-new-009's pass-fail-conditions should be
>>
>> <p>Test passes if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an irregular
>> polygon
>> is straight and unbroken.</p>
>>
>> and not left edge.
>>
>>
Your
InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:

inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
and not
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht

Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht accordingly.

>> 6-
>>
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht
>>
>> I believe inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should
>> be
>>
>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht and not
>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
>>
>> and inline-block-alignment-new-010's pass-fail-conditions should be
>>
>> <p>Test passes if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an irregular
>> polygon
>> is straight and unbroken.</p>
>>
>> and not right edge.

Your
InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:

inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
and not
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht


Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht accordingly.


> Now I have another thought. Now I think that the reference files must
> have
> four pattern for alphabetical baseline testcase.
>
> - (1) vertical-rl + sideways-right (= vertical-rl + sideways)
> - (2) vertical-rl + sideways-left
> - (3) vertical-lr + sideways-right
> - (4) veritcal-lr + sideways-left (= vertical-lr + sideways)
>
> I've attached the image which represents above all pattern.
> In the image, "ABCDEFG" is the first line in inline-block, "HIJKLMN" is
> the
> last line in inline-block.
>
> What do you think about?

I agree with your InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG (under current
spec) but...

'writing-mode: sideways-left'

has a good chance of being adopted by CSSWG ... and then
'text-orientation: sideways-left' would be dropped according to

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0060.html

Gérard
--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html

InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG (31K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Gérard,

I've submitted the new reference files.
https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/219e6caa0a62

I have not adjusted inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht and inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht.
And I have created the new reference file for these two test case.
Is this right choice?

Hajime.


2015-07-17 9:29 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
Le 2015-07-15 19:58, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
Gérard,

I have submitted.

https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/74cf2d8eb799



Hajime,

5-


http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht and not
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-009's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an irregular polygon
is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not left edge.



Your
InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:

inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
and not
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht

Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht accordingly.

6-


http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht and not
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-010's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an irregular polygon
is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not right edge.


Your
InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:

inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
and not
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht


Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht accordingly.


Now I have another thought. Now I think that the reference files must have
four pattern for alphabetical baseline testcase.

- (1) vertical-rl + sideways-right (= vertical-rl + sideways)
- (2) vertical-rl + sideways-left
- (3) vertical-lr + sideways-right
- (4) veritcal-lr + sideways-left (= vertical-lr + sideways)

I've attached the image which represents above all pattern.
In the image, "ABCDEFG" is the first line in inline-block, "HIJKLMN" is the
last line in inline-block.

What do you think about?


I agree with your InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG (under current spec) but...

'writing-mode: sideways-left'

has a good chance of being adopted by CSSWG ... and then
'text-orientation: sideways-left' would be dropped according to

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0060.html



--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

Gérard Talbot-3
Le 2015-07-18 11:31, 塩澤 元 a écrit :

> Gérard,
>
> I've submitted the new reference files.
> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/219e6caa0a62
>
> I have not adjusted inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht and
> inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht.
> And I have created the new reference file for these two test case.
> Is this right choice?
>
> Hajime.

Hajime,

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht

I think you are correct; that is a good catch. We need to use "p"
glyphs. If we use "É" glyphs, then there must be a blank space (white
gap == 0.2em wide) between the last line box of the inline-block and the
first line box (<span class="block-descendant">B</span>).

line 52: ... if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an ...

should be

line 52: ... if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an ...


- - - - - - - -


http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht

I think you are correct. We need to use "p" glyphs in this test too. If
we use "É" glyphs, then there must be a blank space (white gap == 0.2em
wide) between the last line box of the inline-block and the first line
box (<span class="block-descendant">B</span>).

line 52: ... if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an ...

should be

line 52: ... if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an ...


- - - - - - -

Are you going to filename-rename those tests and remove "-new" from
those and in that serie of tests?

Gérard



> 2015-07-17 9:29 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Le 2015-07-15 19:58, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
>>
>>> Gérard,
>>>
>>> I have submitted.
>>>
>>> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/74cf2d8eb799
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hajime,
>>
>>  5-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht
>>>>
>>>> I believe inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should
>>>> be
>>>>
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht and not
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
>>>>
>>>> and inline-block-alignment-new-009's pass-fail-conditions should be
>>>>
>>>> <p>Test passes if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an irregular
>>>> polygon
>>>> is straight and unbroken.</p>
>>>>
>>>> and not left edge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Your
>> InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
>> re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:
>>
>> inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be
>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
>> and not
>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
>>
>> Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht accordingly.
>>
>>  6-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht
>>>>
>>>> I believe inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should
>>>> be
>>>>
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht and not
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
>>>>
>>>> and inline-block-alignment-new-010's pass-fail-conditions should be
>>>>
>>>> <p>Test passes if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an irregular
>>>> polygon
>>>> is straight and unbroken.</p>
>>>>
>>>> and not right edge.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your
>> InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
>> re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:
>>
>> inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be
>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
>> and not
>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
>>
>>
>> Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht accordingly.
>>
>>
>>  Now I have another thought. Now I think that the reference files must
>> have
>>> four pattern for alphabetical baseline testcase.
>>>
>>> - (1) vertical-rl + sideways-right (= vertical-rl + sideways)
>>> - (2) vertical-rl + sideways-left
>>> - (3) vertical-lr + sideways-right
>>> - (4) veritcal-lr + sideways-left (= vertical-lr + sideways)
>>>
>>> I've attached the image which represents above all pattern.
>>> In the image, "ABCDEFG" is the first line in inline-block, "HIJKLMN"
>>> is
>>> the
>>> last line in inline-block.
>>>
>>> What do you think about?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with your InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG (under current
>> spec) but...
>>
>> 'writing-mode: sideways-left'
>>
>> has a good chance of being adopted by CSSWG ... and then
>> 'text-orientation: sideways-left' would be dropped according to
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0060.html
>>
>>
>> Gérard
>> --
>> Test Format Guidelines
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html
>>
>> Test Style Guidelines
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html
>>
>> Test Templates
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html
>>
>> CSS Naming Guidelines
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html
>>
>> Test Review Checklist
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html
>>
>> CSS Metadata
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html
>>

--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)

2015-07-19 3:27 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
Le 2015-07-18 11:31, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
Gérard,

I've submitted the new reference files.
https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/219e6caa0a62

I have not adjusted inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht and
inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht.
And I have created the new reference file for these two test case.
Is this right choice?

Hajime.

Hajime,

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht

I think you are correct; that is a good catch. We need to use "p" glyphs. If we use "É" glyphs, then there must be a blank space (white gap == 0.2em wide) between the last line box of the inline-block and the first line box (<span class="block-descendant">B</span>).

line 52: ... if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an ...

should be

line 52: ... if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an ...


- - - - - - - -


http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht

I think you are correct. We need to use "p" glyphs in this test too. If we use "É" glyphs, then there must be a blank space (white gap == 0.2em wide) between the last line box of the inline-block and the first line box (<span class="block-descendant">B</span>).

line 52: ... if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an ...

should be

line 52: ... if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an ...


- - - - - - -

Are you going to filename-rename those tests and remove "-new" from those and in that serie of tests?

Gérard




2015-07-17 9:29 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:

Le 2015-07-15 19:58, 塩澤 元 a écrit :

Gérard,

I have submitted.

https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/74cf2d8eb799



Hajime,

 5-



http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht and not
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-009's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an irregular polygon
is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not left edge.



Your
InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:

inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
and not
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht

Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht accordingly.

 6-



http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht

I believe inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be

inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht and not
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht

and inline-block-alignment-new-010's pass-fail-conditions should be

<p>Test passes if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an irregular polygon
is straight and unbroken.</p>

and not right edge.



Your
InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:

inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be
inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
and not
inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht


Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht accordingly.


 Now I have another thought. Now I think that the reference files must have
four pattern for alphabetical baseline testcase.

- (1) vertical-rl + sideways-right (= vertical-rl + sideways)
- (2) vertical-rl + sideways-left
- (3) vertical-lr + sideways-right
- (4) veritcal-lr + sideways-left (= vertical-lr + sideways)

I've attached the image which represents above all pattern.
In the image, "ABCDEFG" is the first line in inline-block, "HIJKLMN" is
the
last line in inline-block.

What do you think about?



I agree with your InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG (under current
spec) but...

'writing-mode: sideways-left'

has a good chance of being adopted by CSSWG ... and then
'text-orientation: sideways-left' would be dropped according to

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0060.html


Gérard
--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html


--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html



--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

Gérard Talbot-3
Le 2015-07-18 23:00, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
> Gérard,
>
> all done!
>
> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/f304f0e56580
> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/60b7afe295f8
>
> Hajime.

Hajime,

Great!

I have approved your first 4 tests:
http://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/0647db1207d3

I have hg-copied 3 additional swatch images from css21/support into
css-writing-modes-3/support so that we can use one distinct and unique
color for each edge of the 4 edges.

http://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/ce29cbe95fc2

Please, pick one color ( say, swatch-olive.png ) to distinguish "left
edge" tests from "right edge" tests:

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-006.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-006-ref.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-007.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-007-ref.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-008.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-009.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-009-ref.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-010.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-010-ref.xht

http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-011.xht


and then add

<link rel="reviewer" title="Gerard Talbot"
href="http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/" /> <!--
2015-07-21 -->

to inline-block-alignment-002 to 011 and to related reference files.

-------

If you intend to do inline-table-alignment tests, then please only do
002, 003, 004 and 005 tests for now.

Gérard


>
>
> 2015-07-19 3:27 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Le 2015-07-18 11:31, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
>>
>>> Gérard,
>>>
>>> I've submitted the new reference files.
>>> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/219e6caa0a62
>>>
>>> I have not adjusted inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht and
>>> inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht.
>>> And I have created the new reference file for these two test case.
>>> Is this right choice?
>>>
>>> Hajime.
>>>
>>
>> Hajime,
>>
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht
>>
>> I think you are correct; that is a good catch. We need to use "p"
>> glyphs.
>> If we use "É" glyphs, then there must be a blank space (white gap ==
>> 0.2em
>> wide) between the last line box of the inline-block and the first line
>> box
>> (<span class="block-descendant">B</span>).
>>
>> line 52: ... if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an ...
>>
>> should be
>>
>> line 52: ... if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an ...
>>
>>
>> - - - - - - - -
>>
>>
>>
>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht
>>
>> I think you are correct. We need to use "p" glyphs in this test too.
>> If we
>> use "É" glyphs, then there must be a blank space (white gap == 0.2em
>> wide)
>> between the last line box of the inline-block and the first line box
>> (<span
>> class="block-descendant">B</span>).
>>
>> line 52: ... if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an ...
>>
>> should be
>>
>> line 52: ... if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an ...
>>
>>
>> - - - - - - -
>>
>> Are you going to filename-rename those tests and remove "-new" from
>> those
>> and in that serie of tests?
>>
>> Gérard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  2015-07-17 9:29 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>  Le 2015-07-15 19:58, 塩澤 元 a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>  Gérard,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have submitted.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/74cf2d8eb799
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hajime,
>>>>
>>>>  5-
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht and not
>>>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and inline-block-alignment-new-009's pass-fail-conditions should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <p>Test passes if the <strong>right edge</strong> of an irregular
>>>>>> polygon
>>>>>> is straight and unbroken.</p>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and not left edge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Your
>>>> InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
>>>> re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:
>>>>
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht's reference file should be
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
>>>> and not
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
>>>>
>>>> Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-009.xht accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>  6-
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht and not
>>>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and inline-block-alignment-new-010's pass-fail-conditions should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <p>Test passes if the <strong>left edge</strong> of an irregular
>>>>>> polygon
>>>>>> is straight and unbroken.</p>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and not right edge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Your
>>>> InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG
>>>> re-attached to this email confirms my opinion:
>>>>
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht's reference file should be
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-006-ref.xht
>>>> and not
>>>> inline-block-alignment-new-007-ref.xht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please adjust inline-block-alignment-new-010.xht accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Now I have another thought. Now I think that the reference files
>>>> must
>>>> have
>>>>
>>>>> four pattern for alphabetical baseline testcase.
>>>>>
>>>>> - (1) vertical-rl + sideways-right (= vertical-rl + sideways)
>>>>> - (2) vertical-rl + sideways-left
>>>>> - (3) vertical-lr + sideways-right
>>>>> - (4) veritcal-lr + sideways-left (= vertical-lr + sideways)
>>>>>
>>>>> I've attached the image which represents above all pattern.
>>>>> In the image, "ABCDEFG" is the first line in inline-block,
>>>>> "HIJKLMN" is
>>>>> the
>>>>> last line in inline-block.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your InlineBlockAlphabeticalAlignment.PNG (under
>>>> current
>>>> spec) but...
>>>>
>>>> 'writing-mode: sideways-left'
>>>>
>>>> has a good chance of being adopted by CSSWG ... and then
>>>> 'text-orientation: sideways-left' would be dropped according to
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jul/0060.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gérard
>>>> --
>>>> Test Format Guidelines
>>>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html
>>>>
>>>> Test Style Guidelines
>>>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html
>>>>
>>>> Test Templates
>>>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html
>>>>
>>>> CSS Naming Guidelines
>>>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html
>>>>
>>>> Test Review Checklist
>>>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html
>>>>
>>>> CSS Metadata
>>>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Test Format Guidelines
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html
>>
>> Test Style Guidelines
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html
>>
>> Test Templates
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html
>>
>> CSS Naming Guidelines
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html
>>
>> Test Review Checklist
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html
>>
>> CSS Metadata
>> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html
>>

--
Test Format Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html

Test Style Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html

Test Templates
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html

CSS Naming Guidelines
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html

Test Review Checklist
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html

CSS Metadata
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fixed new inline-block alignement test (complete review)

塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
Thank you for reviewing!

If you intend to do inline-table-alignment tests, then please only do 002, 003, 004 and 005 tests for now.
OK, I see.
Before that, I'm going to create new vertical-alignment test first.

Hajime.

--
# 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime)
# mail: [hidden email]