- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:24:33 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>, "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 09:21 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Philippe, Doug, > > Re the Touch Events spec [TE] and its HTML5 dependency, the only part of > HTML5 that is used is WindowProxy. (Based on LC feedback from Boris last > month [LC-3], as part of some Web IDL bug fixes, this dependency was > added when we replaced AbstractView with WindowProxy). > > Robin mentioned the Window object tests are: > > <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/html/browsers/the-window-object> > > And, Robin reported "according to my coverage analysis Window is pretty > decent". > > Given this - for the purposes of advancing the Touch Events spec from PR > to REC - can we assume the tests above are sufficient to satisfy the > Touch Event's dependency on HTML5? That would be my guess. WindowProxy has been in the spec for a longtime, and implemented in browsers for more than a decade. In addition, HTML5 says: [[ It is thus indistinguishable from that Window object in every way until the browsing context is navigated. There is no WindowProxy interface object. ]] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers.html#the-windowproxy-object So, in other words, you can't really test WindowProxy. It's equivalent to testing a Window object. And TE doesn't put expectation on what features must be exposed on WindowProxy. So, I can't think of a test to write here. Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:24:36 UTC