+1. What Andreas said. On Friday, December 14, 2012, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 19:21, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Bruant > > <bruan...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > >>> As you say, to remain viable, it > >>> must be done quickly. From previous experience, I suggest that there's > >>> exactly one way to get quick universal deployment: add a test to > >>> test262 that fails when a browser's WindowProxy object violates this > >>> normative part of the ES5 spec. > >> > >> I feel such a test would rather belong to the HTML DOM. But either way, > I > >> agree. > > > > The spec that it violates is ES5.1. Therefore it will be > > uncontroversial to put such tests into test262. > > I have to strongly disagree here. By this argument, we could put in a > test for any JS extension in the world that potentially violates > proper ES semantics. I think test262 should test ECMA-262, nothing > else. > > In particular, consider that test262 currently is a headless test, > i.e. no browser needed, a shell like d8 or jsc is enough to run it. > Putting in browser-specific tests would put a _huge_ burden on all > kinds of automated testing environments running this suite. > > /Andreas > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org <javascript:;> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
