Re: [websockets] Test results available

On 26/03/15 15:37, Olli Pettay wrote: > websockets/interfaces.html the test itself has bugs (uses old > idlharness.js?). > > Also websockets/interfaces/WebSocket/events/013.html is buggy. Seems to > rely on blink/presto's EventHandler behavior, which is not > what the specs says should happen.

Re: Test runner now available in web-platform-tests

Apologies: I meant to set a reply-to header to prevent fragmentation.

Test runner now available in web-platform-tests

A simple in-browser test runner is now available in the web-platform-tests repository. This will automatically run testharness.js tests and provides UI for manually marking the results of reftests and manual tests. This runner is designed to be helpful when developing tests and implementations,

Re: [testing] Common way to "manage" test bugs?

On 19/12/13 16:09, Domenic Denicola wrote: I would encourage use of GitHub for greater developer involvement. I think elsewhere in the thread it's been covered how to adapt GitHub issues to solve the potential problems you mention, so hopefully it's sufficient technically for your needs. Just wan

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] <http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers> Looking at thi

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] <http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers> Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.or

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 which says that

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

Redirecting this conversation to public-test-infra. On 12/12/13 13:01, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 12/12/13 7:31 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote: First I ran the tests using https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/test-runner/src on a local server, but then I couldn't think of a straight-forward way to put the

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

On 10/12/13 21:09, Jonas Sicking wrote: We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe thursday) and will hit release on April 29th. So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd imp

Need review for changes to some html/webapps tests

As part of the work to make the testsuite self hosting, I have made changes to a number of testsuites to remove the dependence on PHP and eliminate hardcoded server names. These changes touch a variety of testsuites that I don't own and need careful review. If possible I would like to complete

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Imports

On 06/10/13 17:25, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: And, if the script is executed against the global/window object of the main document, can and should you be able to access the imported document? You can and you should. HTML Imports are effectively #include for the Web. Yes, that sounds

Re: Reminder: TTWF-Shenzhen Nov 9, F2F Meeting Nov 11-12, TP Meeting Nov 13

On 13/09/13 14:29, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All - three threads about TPAC 2013 and WebApps' November 11-12 in Shenzhen. 1. WebApps meeting November 11-12: * You Must register for the meeting * WebApps meeting page

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

On 11/09/13 15:50, Brian Kardell wrote: Yes, to be clear, that is what i meant. If it is in a draft and widely/compatibly implemented and deployed in released browsers not behind a flag - people are using it. If people are using a prefixed — i.e. proprietary — API there is no requirement that

Critic [was: Re: [admin] Testing and GitHub login names]

On 04/23/2013 08:43 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On 22/04/2013 13:12 , James Graham wrote: (as an aside, I note that critic does a much better job here. It allows reviewers to mark when they have completed reviewing each file in each commit. It also records exactly how each issue raised was resolved

Re: [admin] Testing and GitHub login names

On 04/23/2013 08:43 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On 22/04/2013 13:12 , James Graham wrote: On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Arthur Barstow wrote: The only thing that we ask is that pull requests not be merged by whoever made the request. Is this to prevent the `fox guarding the chicken coop`, so to speak

Re: [admin] Testing and GitHub login names

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Arthur Barstow wrote: The only thing that we ask is that pull requests not be merged by whoever made the request. Is this to prevent the `fox guarding the chicken coop`, so to speak? If a test facilitator submits tests (i.e. makes a PR) and everyone that reviews them s

Re: Clipboard API: Stripping script element

On 03/28/2013 12:34 PM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote: On 03/28/2013 10:36 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote: In particular, WebKit has been stripping script element from the pasted content but this may have some side effects on CSS rules.] AFAIK (without re-testing right now)

Re: Fixing appcache: a proposal to get us started

On 03/26/2013 08:02 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Another "feature" that we are proposing is to drop the current manifest format and instead use a JSON based one. The most simple reason for this is that we noticed that the information we need to express quickly became complex enough that using a form

Re: Beacon API

On 02/20/2013 08:24 AM, Reitbauer, Alois wrote: My personal experience is different. We found that using img tags is not that reliable. Especially in Firefox we recently saw some problems. Img tags in general have the disadvantage that the amount of data that can be set is rather limited. While t

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 02/02/2013 12:50 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: On 2/1/13 4:23 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: One of things I wondering about is - after you leave your Fellow position [BTW, that's totally wicked so congrats on that!], and Robin has moved on to `greener pastures` and Odin has moved on to be CEO of Ope

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 01/24/2013 07:22 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote: Arthur Barstow wrote: Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process [Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and its references. (My prefer

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 01/22/2013 12:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the continuous flow of features that migrate from HTML5 to We

Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Brendan Eich wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Sep 22, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Sep 22, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: And two of the interfaces are generic and reusable in other contexts. Nice, and DOMRequest predates yours -- should it

Paths exposed in input type=file (was: Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?)

On 09/20/2012 11:45 PM, Darin Fisher wrote: File path information is already exposed via . "File names may contain partial paths." http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/states-of-the-type-attribute.html#concept-input-type-file-selected I couldn't get any actual browser t

Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Adam Barth wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, James Graham wrote: On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote: Olli wrote: I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and System API from Recommendation track to Note. Sounds good to me. I

Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote: Hi, Olli wrote: I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and System API from Recommendation track to Note. Sounds good to me. Indeed. We are not enthusiastic about implementing an API that has to traverse directory trees as

Re: [UndoManager] Re-introduce DOMTransaction interface?

On 07/06/2012 02:01 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: In your version, you need to remember the order of the arguments, which requires you looking it up each time. If we do decide to add the DOMTransaction constructor back, we should keep passing it a d

Re: [UndoManager] Re-introduce DOMTransaction interface?

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:08 AM, James Graham  wrote: On 07/05/2012 12:38 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: After this change, authors can write: scope.undoManager.transact(new AutomaticDOMTransaction{function () {      scope.appendChild(&quo

Re: [UndoManager] Re-introduce DOMTransaction interface?

On 07/05/2012 12:38 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: Hi all, Sukolsak has been implementing the Undo Manager API in WebKit but the fact undoManager.transact() takes a pure JS object with callback functions is making it very challenging. The problem is that this object needs to be kept alive by either JS

Re: [webcomponents] Template element parser changes => Proposal for adding DocumentFragment.innerHTML

On 05/09/2012 10:16 AM, James Graham wrote: On 05/09/2012 09:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: What doesn't appear to be controversial is the parser changes which would allow the template element to have arbitrary top-level content ele

Re: [webcomponents] Template element parser changes => Proposal for adding DocumentFragment.innerHTML

On 05/09/2012 09:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: What doesn't appear to be controversial is the parser changes which would allow the template element to have arbitrary top-level content elements. It's not controversial as long as an HTML co

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the element

On 04/24/2012 05:57 PM, Yuval Sadan wrote: Placing contents as CDATA is an option. I personally think the tag as proposed is adhoc to somebody's notion of how templates should work. To avoid this I think they should be simpler. I am not seeing the added advantage of having the client parse t

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the element

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to host the template contents as normal descendants of the template element and to make templating APIs accept either template elements or document fragments as template input?  Or to make the template elements have a cloneA

RE: [FileAPI] createObjectURL isReusable proposal

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:46 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: We can certainly talk through some of these issues, though the amount of work we'd need to do doesn't go down. Our proposal is a small change to the lifetime management of the Blob URL and

Re: XPath and Selectors are identical, and shouldn't be co-developed

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Yehuda Katz wrote: Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Yehuda Katz wrote: >Most people would accomplish that using jQuery. Something like: > >var previous = $(current).closest("tr").prev()

Re: XPath and find/findAll methods

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: I'm not convinced that it's worth investing in XPath. At least not beyond the low-hanging fruit of making most of the arguments to .evaluate optional. But I think trying to make selectors compete in expressiveness with XPath is a loosing battle. Right,

Re: XPath and find/findAll methods

On Tue 22 Nov 2011 01:05:18 PM CET, Simon Pieters wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:34:14 +0100, Martin Kadlec wrote: Hello everyone, I've noticed that the find/findAll methods are currently being discussed and there is one thing that might be a good idea to consider. Currently, it's quite unc

Re: innerHTML in DocumentFragment

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Tim Down wrote: Have you looked at the createContextualFragment() method of Range? http://html5.org/specs/dom-parsing.html#dom-range-createcontextualfragment That doesn't meet the use case where you don't know the contextual element upfront. As I understand it that is imp

Re: how to organize the DOM specs [Was: CfC: publish new WD of DOM Core]

On 08/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/ I *always* used the much smaller document that used to be available here: www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/ I don't really understand your point here. If you used the smaller

Re: CfC: WebApps testing process; deadline April 20

On 04/21/2011 01:10 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote: First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications in the WebApps increase in maturity. I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh ra

Re: [FileAPI] File.slice spec bug

On 04/14/2011 03:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: It would be nice to hear from someone at Opera about their willingness to commit to this change as well. As a general point we think that making breaking changes to APIs with multiple compatible implementations that are already shipping is a reall

Re: RfC: WebApps Testing Process

(setting followup to public-testinfra) On 04/04/2011 01:45 AM, Garrett Smith wrote: I'd rather see the `format_value` function broken up. It makes non-standard expectations of host objects (`val`) and that there is a global `Node` object. Which standard requires that? Well Web DOM Core does.

Re: Testing Requirements

On 02/17/2011 01:03 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On Feb/17/2011 5:04 AM, ext James Graham wrote: On 02/17/2011 09:55 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: (I see that Art documented most of this in http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing_Requirements but thought this ought to be confirmed on

Re: Testing Requirements

On 02/17/2011 09:55 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: (I see that Art documented most of this in http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing_Requirements but thought this ought to be confirmed on the list) Is there some way to make put this documentation in some common location rather than

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

Sam Ruby wrote: A concern specific to HTML5 uses WebIDL in a way that precludes implementation of these objects in ECMAScript (i.e., they can only be implemented as host objects), and an explicit goal of ECMA TC39 has been to reduce such. Ideally ECMA TC39 and the W3C HTML WG would jointly d