RE: Publishing a new version of the WD

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Simon Stewart < simon.m.stewart@gmail.com > wrote:

Wait, 1:44 AM?  Wow, that's commitment.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Ross Patterson <rpatterson@parature.com<mailto:rpatterson@parature.com>> wrote:
* Sec. 7.2 conflates three different parameters as "name".  Shouldn't there instead be "id", "windowHandle", and "windowName" parameters with separate value sets?

The "name" parameter could mean one of several things. That list describes the order in which that parameter should be compared with attributes of the window. The reason for doing things this way is to make the local end easier to implement: each of these types is commonly represented as a string. Given we're not even strongly typing "windowHandle" the local end (it's an opaque string) a poorly designed framework layered on top of WebDriver will cause all sorts of trouble. This way, we push the complexity into the remote end but can clearly express behaviour.

I think the spec should strive to eliminate ambiguity and to ensure clarity of intent between local and remote ends, but I see your point.

* Sec. 9 discusses the difference between a WebDriver "id" attribute and a DOM "id" attribute.  Given the huge history of ignoring the uniqueness requirement for DOM's "id", the "The IDs used to refer to different underlying DOM Elements must be unique within the session over the entire duration of the session." Should probably explicitly reject the historical illegal usage of non-unique DOM "id" values.

Isn't that expressed in "must be unique"? Or does it need to be made even clearer?

As a colleague says, "'Need' is such a strong term" :)  I would have thought the DOM id uniqueness requirement was pretty darned clear also.  But no, I think I was just venting on this particular topic :)

* Sec. 16.2 says "One of those monitors would be very cool."  Very true, but also the only instance of humor in the spec so far :-)

The second: section 1.1 has The Other Joke in it. :)

OK, +1 for more jokes then :)

Thanks,
Ross Patterson
Parature