- From: Simon Stewart <simon.m.stewart@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 18:50:48 +0100
- To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Cc: public-browser-tools-testing <public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 17:51:20 UTC
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:42 PM, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: > On 04/10/16 18:32, Simon Stewart wrote: > > In addition, I've already found differences between what the spec says >> and what geckodriver does. If the most widely used end node that >> attempts to follow the spec doesn't conform to it, then clearly it's >> also tricky to get this right in the end node too. >> > > FWIW I don't think that this is because one approach or the other is > easier to implement in geckodriver, I think it's because parts of the spec > have changed under geckodriver and we haven't been diligent about keeping > up (this applies across the board, not just to this specific issue). It's > also because we simply have bugs and there isn't yet a good testsuite, of > course. > You know geckodriver far better than I do :) All I could comment on are the observable effects. Once we get Selenium 3 out the door, I'll be in a better place to help out with the test suite. Simon
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 17:51:20 UTC