Re: Defacto tests (Was: Tentative tests)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Rick Byers <> 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.

To spell it out, I suppose the concern with adding tests before
there's a spec is that it would affect the likelihood of a spec ever
being written? That seems plausible in some cases, as adding another
defacto test will always be less work than writing a whole new spec.

Still, there are probably cases where the options are shared defacto
tests and no spec, or no shared tests and no spec. If we could
magically allow for just those cases, I guess that'd be

Received on Monday, 29 May 2017 21:23:59 UTC