Am Thursday 04 November 2004 16:38 schrieb Mitz Pettel:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for making the test results available to me. I see there are 
> still many unnecessarily split runs (mostly when a line begins with a 
> neutral type, it seems). I'll try to eliminate the splits.
> 
> Regarding the failures:
> 1. text-transform.html is really puzzling. Why does it single out those 
> few characters? Aren't they all DirL? I'll look into it, but it's very 
> strange. From your remark about the selectors bug I gather that my 
> patch isn't the only difference you're testing. Could there have been a 
> change to Unicode data between versions?
No. It's supposed to only show differences your patch makes. The test is
pretty mean though. I wouldn't take this as regression. Just ignore it.

> 2. sec09-10a.htm - the "OUT" looks exactly like Firefox and MSIE render 
> it, so I'd say it's a success, actually!
The test case is pretty academical anyway :)

> 3. sec09-10b.htm - the "OUT" looks more like Firefox renders it: [right 
> cl1] and [right cl3] are like Firefox. [right cl2] is broken both in 
> "BASE" and in "OUT" (it should look something like
>  g f e d c b a 31 21 11 01 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [2lc thgir]
> and indeed that's what it looks like in Firefox).
If it was broken before, it's no regression. If you have a fix for cl2, even better.

> 4. css3-modsel-d4.html - the selectors bug.
Yes.
> 
> Regarding the fixes: cool! What I don't get is why they're flagged as 
> RESOLVED/FIXED in the bug database if they weren't really fixed.
Because the bug was about something else. We can't leave all bugs open
that aren't rendered perfectly. Usually we open a new bug report with
a more specific description + test case.

If you improve the splits, this would be fine. Otherwise I'll just commit as it
is unless someone objects.

Greetings, Stephan