Bug 103506 - Should pass @supports W3C tests
Summary: Should pass @supports W3C tests
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: CSS (show other bugs)
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)
Hardware: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Nobody
URL:
Keywords: FromImplementor
Depends on: 103934 104822
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-11-28 04:44 PST by Simon Pieters
Modified: 2017-10-30 17:08 PDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Simon Pieters 2012-11-28 04:44:08 PST
http://hg.csswg.org/test/file/5f94e4b03ed9/contributors/opera/submitted/css3-conditional has @supports tests from Opera. Firefox passes all reftests but doesn't fully pass the js test (filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=816045 ). Opera passes all tests. I think WebKit with @supports enabled doesn't pass all tests.
Comment 1 Simon Pieters 2012-11-28 04:51:31 PST
I also noticed that http://trac.webkit.org/export/131783/trunk/LayoutTests/css3/supports.html has a few fails in Opera and Firefox (apart from the test expecting the quotes to be absent, I think CSSOM requires the quotes). I haven't investigated which tests are correct per spec.
Comment 2 Pablo Flouret 2012-11-29 17:12:29 PST
For test 014 i see this in the spec:
supports_negation
  : NOT S* supports_condition_in_parens
  ;

(in fact it's S* all around, i think Tab changed a couple of those that weren't at some point.)

The other failing tests are 004, 021, 024, 031, 033. These are legitimate bugs, 004 is a tricky one with nesting, the rest are due to lack of error handling. I'll fix what i can.

The fails from the css3/supports.html in opera and firefox are related to whitespace between not/and/or and parens, or because the condition uses a -webkit prefixed property, so there's nothing serious there.
Comment 3 Simon Pieters 2012-11-30 04:38:39 PST
If some tests are wrong per the current spec, I'm happy to fix them, but it would be helpful if you could point out which are wrong so I'm confident about which to fix. :-)
Comment 4 Simon Pieters 2012-11-30 04:41:05 PST
Oh, I glossed over 014 in your comment. Is that the only one?
Comment 5 Simon Pieters 2012-11-30 07:13:11 PST
Fixed 014. http://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/a9c10115a98c
Comment 6 Pablo Flouret 2012-11-30 10:03:48 PST
Yeah, i think that's the only one. Thanks!
Comment 7 Simon Pieters 2012-12-13 04:31:08 PST
FTR, my 014 change was wrong per the current spec, but it's possible that the spec will change so that the test becomes valid.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=816045#c6
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Dec/0084.html