On 2014/01/07 21:24:59, felix8a wrote:
On 2014/01/07 21:19:30, kpreid_google wrote:
> It's not really the specific size of the viewport that's at issue —
it's that we
> have an existing mechanism to handle the problem of the content
needing to be a
> certain amount larger than the viewport, and the mechanism is that
<p> that I
> pointed out; thus that's what should be tweaked, not the viewport
size.
>
> But I do also have memories of debugging these tests being annoying
due to the
> viewport size — I don't recall the exact scenario.
Making the <p> larger seems like a worse option to me. How do I know
how large
the <p> should be, maybe 10000px is enough? Will a relative size like
200% be
based off the right measurement? And larger content also makes it
harder to view
the results, since now I have to scroll an arbitrary distance to see
the next
result.
I don't follow your argument. For the purpose of executing the test,
making the <p> larger by some amount is exactly the same in effect as
making the viewport smaller by the same amount. And the amount of
scrolling you have to do is the same in either case (though what I
propose does mean introducing more 'blank' space).
I think the conclusion here is that we really ought to put the
resizing/scrolling tests in their own dedicated file (like is already
done for test-container-overflow) so their special requirements don't
interfere with usability of other things.
This change LGTM as is, doesn't matter that much.
https://codereview.appspot.com/40370044/
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Caja Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
