- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:45:41 -0500
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 12/10/12 9:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > * Are the assertions that are already defined (see Section 3 in the > Testing document), valid? A big caveat: Testing objects that are not actually using WebIDL is pointless for conformance criteria purposes. At least in Gecko's case, some objects are using WebIDL already, some are not yet; a number of the ones the assertion tests suggest using so far are not. So we may end up with test passes on the latter objects that have nothing to do with WebIDL. It's worth checking with other UAs what their situation is when picking the sets of objects to test.... "Objects should have an internal prototype of Object.prototype unless otherwise noted" is not valid as written. In particular, Object.getPrototypeOf(Element.prototype) == Node.prototype. The only objects WebIDL really defines whose protos are Object.prototype should be interface objects for callback interfaces and prototype objects for interfaces which have no ancestor interface, I think. "objects defined to be function objects have an internal prototype of Function.prototype" is fine as written, but I recommend testing a few interface objects as well, including at least one interface object for an interface with ancestors. XMLHttpRequest and EventTarget are good candidates. "JavaScript function returning a value for a void function is discarded" the note about handleEvent is false. The return value of functions set as an event handler is used, but the return value of functions added via addEventListener is in fact ignored in UAs last I checked. The rest look ok to me. It might be good to try to split the spec into pieces and hand the pieces out to people to work on or something... -Boris
Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 14:46:12 UTC