W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org > January 2013

Re: RfR: Progress Events Test Cases; deadline January 28

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:38:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78gguyEM+q4ugbwgsSYthBc=X9TU1DeEYkTVj-pyVpMU4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org" <public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> <http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ProgressEvents/tests/submissions/Ms2ger/>

http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ProgressEvents/tests/submissions/Ms2ger/constructor.html
is buggy. We changed the default of event.eventPhase a while back.

http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ProgressEvents/tests/submissions/Ms2ger/other.html
is also buggy. Per DOM document.createEvent() should not work with
ProgressEvent.


> <http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ProgressEvents/tests/submissions/Samsung/>

These are testing XMLHttpRequest. There are no normative criteria in
the Progress Events specification that justify these tests. (This in
part is why I merged Progress Events into XMLHttpRequest. On its own
it's kinda useless.)

As for the tests, one is buggy because the PHP gives a 404. Another
one assumes the network is not slow by checking for ev.loaded != 0.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:39:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 April 2014 14:15:59 UTC