On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > > On 28 Oct 2015, at 17:27, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > wrote: > > > >> * dom — sure, I suppose. not very useful for actual browsers, to be > fair, so just extra overhead to release tests. > > > > We can key off of <script> and such instead if needed. > > I've written tests that use <script> but intentionally don't use the "dom" > flag. These were manual tests where the script reduced the amount of manual > work required to execute the test, but was optional and the test was still > valid if scripts were not supported. > > Then again, this is sufficiently corner case that I wouldn't object to > losing this bit of expressivity, even if I would miss it. > As soon as a test is manual I don't think we really need much more metadata. It's just not worth it, because the runner can always read it. If we want to distinguish optional scripts, we should just add some flag for tests with scripts that don't *require* scripting—optimise for the common case, make explicit the rare case. /gsnedders
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 08:00:30 UTC