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

Re: Defacto tests (Was: Tentative tests)

From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:52:56 +0100
To: public-test-infra@w3.org
Message-ID: <b771cb51-b6f5-70a0-8f02-dd3167bd06c9@hoppipolla.co.uk>
On 02/06/17 13:18, Rick Byers wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Philip J├Ągenstedt <foolip@chromium.org 
> <mailto:foolip@chromium.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl
>     <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com <mailto: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.
> 
> 
> If there are real-world issues with interop around hit-testing we should 
> absolutely use those to increase the priority of writing a spec. I filed 
> this tracking bug 
> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=590296> in 
> chromium, but still have only the single example 
> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=417667> that led 
> me to file the bug. Personally I'm most interested in the "this real 
> website behaves differently in different browsers and there's no 
> agreement on which one is right" sort of issue, but I suppose "speccing 
> this new feature was more contentious / time-consuming because 
> hit-testing isn't defined" should count for something too.

FWIW there were lots of issues specifying WebDriver associated with hit 
testing being undefined.
Received on Friday, 2 June 2017 12:57:34 UTC

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