(Fine with me) On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:22 PM, David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com> wrote: > As has been pointed out in this thread, the specification is purely for > documenting how to implement the remote end. While this might be highly > used it is also the easiest to implement in 1 line of JavaScript. I agree > with the sentiment that we already have a lot to do with the spec so let's > not worry about it for now. > > David > > On 10 April 2015 at 13:48, Andreas Tolfsen <ato@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On 10 Apr 2015, at 13:23, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: >> > 1) It's an entirely backwards-compatible change so can be added at any >> > time in the future. >> >> … >> >> > 3) It's trivial to implement in clients in a way that covers all the use >> > cases for the current spec (i.e. interacting with web browsers). >> >> I think the concern is that if we don't define it, API local ends who do >> implement a shim for it could end up implementing it wrongly. >> >> My argument is that Selenium is free to mandate its behaviour and that >> it's in such a regard not a big problem if we don't have it in the spec. >> >> Additionally, it would regardless be consistent across browsers in a >> single language binding which isn't the case now. If Selenium really wants >> to be pedantic about this, it could ship a local end atom. >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 20:31:39 UTC