W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-secondscreen@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [presentation-api] Presentation API IDL Tests for Presentation Interface

From: Mark Foltz via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:11:05 +0000
To: public-secondscreen@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-165873540-1450465863-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Also see Issue #205 where I raise the issue of how to treat 
`defaultRequest` and `receiver` in UAs that conform to one class but 
not the other. 

Personally I would prefer leaving the attributes undefined in user 
agents that don't implement the corresponding interfaces or 
functionality.  Literally there is no reason to have the attribute at 
all and that is consistent with other cases where the user agent does 
not implement a web platform feature, i.e. as a developer I would 
expect Navigator.foo to be undefined if foo is not implemented.

I guess this is option #1 above?

For IDL harness testing, maybe we can tag parts of the IDL to be 
present in the receiving or controlling UA, and extract two different 
IDLs.  Each conformance class should have its own IDL test anyway, 
right?




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by mfoltzgoogle
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/230#issuecomment-165873540
 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 18 December 2015 19:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 18 December 2015 19:11:06 UTC