Re: Top-level HTTPS tests?

Ping. :)

With Mixed Content now at CR, it would be nice to have a clear path forward
for a test suite. Is something like `.https.html` a reasonable solution, or
is there another method you folks would prefer to persue?

-mike

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> In
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/2015JanMar/0000.html,
> James noted that it is now possible to load subresources over HTTPS, which
> is ever so excellent. That said, a number of features (Service Workers,
> Mixed Content, etc) require the test itself to be run under HTTPS. I'd like
> to start putting together test suites for some WebAppSec specs, but that's
> proving to be a difficult task.
>
> In Blink, we've settled on a "*.https.html" naming convention for such
> tests which ensures that our test runner opens the test over HTTPS. That
> is, any test with `.https.` in the filename will point to an HTTPS URL, and
> not to an HTTP URL. Would such a system work for web-platform-tests?
>
> Note that we don't have a ton of such tests in Blink, so I'm happy to
> change our behavior to align with whatever works for WPT and other user
> agents. The filename-based solution is pretty simple and straightforward,
> but we're flexible. :)
>
> --
> Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest
>
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
> Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
> Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
> Flores
> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
>