- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:26:04 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 13/05/2013 15:16 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > * Web IDL parser: there are at least two [idlharness.js] and > [webidl2.js]. Which one should be used for CR testing; has anyone > committed to maintaining and completing the parser; how is it used > vis-a-vis the CR exit criteria? idlharness.js is not a WebIDL parser, it uses webidl2.js under the hood. As Dom said however, we do have wildproc. Both are believed to be as correct as we can figure out. > * Cameron's Web IDL tests submitted May 12 [Cameron]. How does this > relate to Travis' plan and the parser work? I was hoping that that would actually be enough to transition. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 13:26:20 UTC