- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:34:48 +0000
- To: public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
On 05/03/15 16:25, Jason Leyba wrote: > To the point at hand, yes there is a balancing act. You seem to be > arguing it doesn't add much complexity, so why not support it. I'm > arguing that the added convenience doesn't justify increasing the > surface area or complexity of what implementors should be required to > support. No, I'm arguing that — to the extent that switching windows is a useful function at all — switching based on webdriver handle is almost useless and switching based on name is very useful. So either every end user has to implement their own switch-by-name logic, or every client does. Those options are terrible, and very bad respectively since it's reasonably easy to get wrong (e.g. not considering that window handles aren't necessarily ordered, not considering the possibility of windows getting closed between calls, etc.). On the other hand I haven't heard anyone argue that this is actually hard for remote ends to support. Therefore the priority of constituencies [1] strongly argues for putting this in remote ends. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies (in this case "users" are WebDriver end users, "authors" are "local end implementors" and "implementors" are "remote end implementors").
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 16:35:14 UTC