- From: Rick Byers <web-platform-tests-notifications@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 23:41:23 GMT
- To: public-web-platform-tests-notifications@w3.org
> I'm not so sure about this. @rbyers I know interoperability has a special place in your heart. Do you think WPT ought to maintain tests for conditions that are explicitly forbidden by the standards? Does it make sense to hold browsers accountable to these cases? Yeah, I think we should have negative tests where practical. Eg. we've talked about landing tests which validate a given API does NOT exist (eg. when it's been removed from a standard). I'd consider it a chromium bug whenever chromium is doing something explicitly prohibited by a spec. However, in some cases that may be lower priority than what the test is really trying to test - so pragmatically when we find such things it might make the most sense to move them to a separate test case to avoid failures in logically unrelated tests. Where things get tricky is when a specification leaves something implementation-defined. Often that's a spec bug (just not specified due to omission). Occasionally it's a pragmatic tradeoff where we've accepted that the cost of trying to achieve consensus isn't worth the benefit. In such cases we can't really have a WPT test, though I personally still consider it likely a chromium bug when chromium behaves differently from all other engines in such situations. Does that help in this case? View on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/5037#issuecomment-283818884
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2017 23:41:37 UTC