- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 02:31:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 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. WebIDL defines the class name and ECMAScript requires the [object foo] serialisation, if I'm not mistaken. If I'm wrong and it's not required yet, then I guess I have a bug report for heycam. :-) > > and I think there's no controversy over [002-002] > > 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. For the Selectors API as far as I can tell it's trivial to implement, no? Just put the APIs on the other interfaces directly. > > 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. Technically, Selectors API does require these, no? I agree that for 002-001 it's more implicit, but 002-002 and 002-003 are explicit. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 7 March 2009 02:32:27 UTC