W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Defacto tests (Was: Tentative tests)

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 08:13:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78jCd1913zsJuTneFPOES1MBfKQkUWcTJFENqZdA1oDr5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
Cc: Philip J├Ągenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Mark Dittmer <markdittmer@chromium.org>, Patrick Kettner <patket@microsoft.com>, public-test-infra@w3.org
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
> My favorite example is hit-testing.  hit-testing is largely interoperable
> already, and it's usually fairly obvious what the correct behavior is, but
> it would likely be a huge effort to spec properly.  However there are some
> special cases, and engines do occasionally make changes to align between
> browsers.  In those cases it totally seems worth the effort to capture some
> of the discussion and web compat lessons in tests, even if we can't justify
> the cost of writing a full hit-testing spec.

Why can't we justify that cost? If it's as interoperable as you say it
should actually be fairly easy to write down... I'm also pretty sure
that because it's not written down we continue to run into issues and
have a hard time defining new features that interact with hit testing
or mean to adjust it (such as pointer-events). That nobody has taken
the time doesn't mean it's not worth it.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 06:13:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:34:13 UTC