Re: Proposal: Setting all capabilities to required

I'm not sure I'm following, Andreas. Yes, we don't know what additional
capabilities the remote end may support. But how is that relevant in this
discussion?
On Oct 18, 2014 6:37 AM, "Andreas Tolfsen" <ato@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Seva Lo <vlotoshnikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we (the local end) do not know why sessions failed to start, more
> > information from the remote end will only help. Of course, often the
> browser
> > just won't start or other component will malfunction and then the driver
> > won't know much to report (could be an environment error or a
> transitional
> > glitch), so it will return error message(s) as it does now. But if the
> > session couldn't be started because certain specific capability couldn't
> be
> > met (by the end driver or an intermediary such as Java Selenium server
> or a
> > grid node), that's would be something to report back for the local end to
> > know.
>
> Sure, but we don't know anything about what additional capabilities a
> remote end supports.
>
> I think the best we can do is to _suggest_ that the remote returns a
> non-successful response with a value that is a string with some
> arbitrary reason why a session couldn't be provided.  Would that work
> for you?
>
> > I agree, with anything like described above, a standard order or
> > consideration of the capabilities is important for interoperability.
>
> Filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27097
>