Re: Publishing a new version of the WD

Hi,

David and I have both spent some time working on the draft. Please take a
look at tip of tree, as I've merged David and my edits together. If there
are no more blockers, I say we push this once it all validates.

Cheers,

Simon

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Ross Patterson <rpatterson@parature.com>wrote:

> 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>
> 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” J  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 J ****
>
>  ****
>
> * 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 J****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Ross Patterson****
>
> Parature****
>
> ** **
>