W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [Selectors API] Call for Consensus - approve John Resig's tests

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:24:55 -0500
Message-ID: <49AFE0B7.3090500@mit.edu>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> However, I don't think the things tested in 002 are controversal. In 
> particular, all the UAs have converged on the behaviour tested by 002-001 
> for other objects

Ah, that wasn't the case last I checked.  And again, there's no 
specification I can find that requires it.

> 002-002 is explicitly required by the IDL block in Selectors API

This is the dependency on WebIDL I was talking about.

 > and I think there's no controversy over that particular requirement

Probably not, though I suspect that Gecko won't implement this any time 
soon; certainly not until WebIDL stabilizes more.  It requires some 
pretty nontrivial changes.

 > and 002-003 is a bog-standard DOM test of one of the
> requirements in the Selectors API that doesn't really depend on WebIDL at 
> all.

Sure; I didn't have any issues with that one.

> So since everyone is converging on the behaviour tested here, it 
> should be pretty safe.

It depends on whether you want tests for behavior that UAs are 
converging on or for behavior that the relevant specs actually require.

>> For that matter, it's not clear to me that test 001 is.
> 
> Why not? I think everything in 001 is non-controversal and tests only 
> things that are required by Selectors API, no?

I was talking about 002-001.

-Boris
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:25:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT