- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:18:01 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On 12/06/2014 08:21 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Sam Ruby wrote: > >> An example where help would be very much appreciated: would it be >> possible for somebody who not only is familiar with RFC 3986 but also >> has a sense for what parts might be changeable and what parts can't >> change to review the following: >> >> https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/urltest-results/ > > This page is rather difficult to digest. One problem is that there is no > indication of expected results, and the colour coding does not indicate, > for instance, where test results diverge from the relevant RFCs. I hope that you find the following page to be easier to digest: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/test-results/ With this page, you can do more than simply compare user agents against the reference implementation of the URL Standard. You can compare one browser against other browsers. You can compare Perl against Python. If you feel that there is a RFC 3986 compliant application in the set, you can compare it against the reference implementation. If you select a collection to compare against a baseline, then yellow will mean that less than two implementations pass. If you select an individual user agent, yellow will show differences. Clicking on a row will take you to more details on the individual results for that test. Yellow will show individual differences against the baseline you selected. Clicking on either the input or base on such a page will take you to a page where you can interactively explore differences between the browser you are using to view the page and what the reference implementation provides. Exceptions show up as hot pink. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 17:18:29 UTC