- From: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:03:50 +0100
- To: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
- CC: 'Arthur Barstow' <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org, cpgs@samsung.com
[My apologies for not replying to this thread earlier, I've been quite busy.] On 02/21/2013 01:15 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: > Hi Ms2ger, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:59 PM >> >> On 2/21/13 1:13 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:40 AM >>>> >>> Thank you so much. I think test case #1 and #6 in constructor.html >>> should be moved to DOM spec test. It is resorting to the >>> implementation of Event interface. E.g., WebKit Event implementation >>> does not even have isTrusted attribute at the moment. >> >> Please copy interface.html to the approved directory <http://w3c- >> test.org/webapps/ProgressEvents/tests/approved/>. >> >> If no one objects to removing #1 and #6 from constructor.html before Feb >> 24 then please put a version of that file in the approved and only include >> the other tests. >> > > Checking again, IMO, only the following three assertions should be retained > in #1: > assert_equals(ev.lengthComputable, false) > assert_equals(ev.loaded, 0) > assert_equals(ev.total, 0) > and #6 should be moved to DOM. > > Would you review it again? I think it would make more sense to keep the assertions; Progress Events has a normative reference to DOM for the definition of Event. However, if there's a particular issue with one of them (such as isTrusted, apparently), I don't mind if you remove just that assertion. As for #6, I think it's relevant to this specification, but I don't feel strongly. In either case, please add the removed assertions to the DOM test suite. Ms2ger
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 13:04:21 UTC