Repository navigation
docs: refresh 2.5.22 references and CSS evidence - #91
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reference links and the introductory-example CI pin lagged behind the published engine. Import nine reference pages from the final 2.5.22 tag and verify the introductory Python examples against its public wheel. Preserve the font guide's language examples and earlier synthesis evidence in the importer so future syncs retain them.
Add the retained 2.5.22 source-corpus follow-up to the CSS comparison: 1,619 PASS, 25 FAIL, and 18 REFERENCE-DISPUTED. Include unchanged before/after drop-cap renders, the reproduced public-wheel PDF, source provenance, and executable evidence links. Keep the original 2.5.14 published-wheel report and clearly distinguish the newer source-candidate corpus from focused public-package checks. Existing language downloads retain their own tested pins.
Validation:
No general CSS-parity or standards-conformance claim. The existing upstream corpus gate still fails, and the remaining failures and disputed references are retained.