W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2018

Re: Transition Request: WebDriver to Proposed Recommendation

From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:11:44 -0400
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com>, Simon Stewart <shs@rocketpoweredjetpants.com>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, chairs@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <456cc9f1-a90a-4d42-e1ea-869cf2f1b1c4@w3.org>


On 2018-03-23 09:46 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> This is an updated request from the Browser Testing and Tools Working Group
> to transition the WebDriver spec to Proposed Recommendation.
> 
> This request is a follow-up to the initial request, which is archived at
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2017Sep/0000.html, sent at
> the beginning of September of last year.
> 
> This request aligns with decisions that came out of face-to-face discussions
> at TPAC among the team and the group. In particular, it was recognized that at
> the time the original request was made, we were lacking some details about test
> results. So this updated request adds those details — which are as follows:
> 
> Complete results for all tests:
> 
> https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/results/html/all.html
> 
> Complete documentation on all current failures:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13LGSCDf5o3xLj9RCWgDoK8pkCHECsGfnY34fYiK88JI/edit

In looking at these test results I see that the Add Cookie feature has 
no implementation reported as passing any of the tests.  The failure 
documentation does not explain why this should be considered acceptable.

Please explain.

While the other features each have some tests with passing 
implementations, this one stand out.

-Ralph

> With regard to those, the gist of it is that while we recognize we don’t
> have 100% of the tests passing, we don’t consider any of the current test
> failures to be major issues with the implementability of the spec — and
> we are confident that they will be corrected in implementations in due time —
> and we are more than satisfied that we have met our exit criteria with
> regard to demonstrating solid implementation experience.
> > The original transition request follows — with the only change being
> adjustment of the estimated publication date and to the information about
> the number of resolved issues. There have have otherwise been no changes to
> the spec that would invalidate prior reviews or that would otherwise affect
> the transition request.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> This is a request from the Browser Testing and Tools Working Group to
> transition the WebDriver spec to Proposed Recommendation.
> 
> # Title: WebDriver
> # URL: https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html
> # Estimated publication date: 29 March 2018
> 
> # Abstract
> WebDriver is a remote control interface that enables introspection and
> control of user agents. It provides a platform- and language-neutral wire
> protocol as a way for out-of-process programs to remotely instruct the
> behavior of web browsers.  Provided is a set of interfaces to discover and
> manipulate DOM elements in web documents and to control the behavior of a
> user agent. It is primarily intended to allow web authors to write tests
> that automate a user agent from a separate controlling process, but may
> also be used in such a way as to allow in-browser scripts to control a —
> possibly separate — browser.  The standard forms part of the Web Testing
> Activity that authors a larger set of tools commonly used for testing.
> 
> # Status
> https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html#status-of-this-document
> 
> # Link to group's decision to request transition
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-browser-tools-testing/2017JulSep/0006.html
> 
> # Requirements satisfied
> Only clarifications have been made on areas under specified.
> 
> The primary requirement for this document is to document the WebDriver wire
> protocol and Actions API, as well as its standard Capabilities, Sessions model,
> and navigation behavior, along with details such as command contexts, and
> element interaction, as currently supported in multiple implementations.
> 
> The success of the specification in meeting its requirement is attested to
> by existing widespread usage of WebDriver.
> 
> # Dependencies met (or not)
> There are no dependencies which have not been satisfied.
> 
> The spec has normative dependencies on the following W3C Recs:
> 
> * Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1 (CSS 2.1) (Rec)
> * Page Visibility (Second Edition) (Rec)
> * Pointer Events (Rec)
> * Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition) (Rec)
> * XML Path Language (XPath) Version 1.0 (Rec)
> 
> The spec has normative dependencies on the following W3C CRs:
> 
> * CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 4 (CR)
> * CSS Values and Units Module Level 3 (CR)
> * Geometry Interfaces Module Level 1 (CR)
> 
> The spec has normative dependencies on the following W3C working drafts:
> 
> * Content Security Policy Level 3 (WD)
> * CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1 (WD)
> * CSS basic box model (WD)
> * CSS Display Module Level 3 (WD)
> * CSS Object Model (CSSOM) (WD)
> * CSSOM View Module (WD)
> * DOM Parsing and Serialization (WD)
> * HTML Editing APIs (WD)
> * UI Events (WD)
> * UI Events KeyboardEvent code Values (WD)
> * UI Events KeyboardEvent key Values (WD)
> * Web IDL (WD)
> 
> The spec has normative dependencies on the following WHATWG Living Standards:
> 
> * HTML (LS)
> * DOM (LS)
> * Fetch (LS)
> * URL (LS)
> * Fullscreen API (LS)
> * Infra (LS)
> 
> The Browser Testing and Tools Working Group Working Group has responded to all
> review feedback submitted by other groups, and all other groups remain satisfied
> with the resolutions they have received for their comments.
> 
> # Wide Review
> Evidence that the specification has received wide review is provided by the
> record of discussions in the specification’s issue tracker:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues
> 
> # Issues addressed
> The specification’s issue tracker contains a total of 324 resolved issues.
> (There are 88 open/unresolved issues, but those are against v2 of the spec.)
> 
> # Formal Objections
> None
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 20:11:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:51 UTC