Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Convert 2 Microsoft SVG-in-HTML tests to testharness.js #7758

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 13, 2017

Conversation

foolip
Copy link
Member

@foolip foolip commented Oct 13, 2017

That's 014 and 015. Drive-by whitespace changes in 002 and 012.

That's 014 and 015. Drive-by whitespace changes in 002 and 012.
@wpt-pr-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

There are no owners for this pull request. Please reach out on W3C's irc server (irc.w3.org, port 6665) on channel #testing (web client) to get help with this. Thank you!

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Oct 13, 2017

The tests fail in Chrome and Firefox. When all results are on wpt.fyi, maybe it'll be easier to decide what to do with these.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 13, 2017

Build PASSED

Started: 2017-10-13 14:43:06
Finished: 2017-10-13 14:44:03

View more information about this build on:

@AmeliaBR
Copy link
Contributor

As far as standardizing format goes, the pull request should probably be approved.

But the tests themselves need a review.

I'm particularly confused about 015: I don't think there's anything in the HTML parser that is expected to camelCase an HTML element name just because it happens to be a case-insensitive match for an SVG element camelCase name; the case-correction is specific to being in an SVG namespace parsing context. Not sure where's the best place to discuss that.

014 is correct per SVG 1.1 and the HTML parser, but we probably need something added to SVG 2 that lists the now-obsolete elements and requires them to be parsed as SVG. That should probably be an issue filed in https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Oct 13, 2017

Thanks @AmeliaBR, I didn't look too hard at the validity, once I know the results I'll get back to your comment to see what changes and issues are needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants