- From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:40:16 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] > 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. I've updated these three assertions now. Thanks for the feedback.
Received on Friday, 21 December 2012 19:41:16 UTC