Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
Hi folks, I am putting together an implementation report for Selectors API, but I don't have handy access to a copy of Windows/IE9 - if anyone who does has the couple of minutes needed to visit http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/001.html http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/002.html http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.html and copy the list of failing tests if any, I would be grateful. (I have Safari, Chrome and Firefox as well as Opera handy). Likewise I'd be interested in reports about the blackberry browser... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
(Using IE9 RC1) On 2/22/11 4:17 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/001.html 100% http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/002.html 100% http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.html I get a 404. Cheers, Mike
Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
On Feb/22/2011 4:40 PM, ext Mike Taylor wrote: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.html I get a 404. The above is missing and x and should be: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.xhtml
Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:40:34 +0100, Mike Taylor miketa...@gmail.com wrote: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.html I get a 404. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/003.xhtml -- Arve Bersvendsen Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: I believe the test suite is nearly ready [1]. As I mentioned last year, Minefield currently passes 100% of the test suite. However, this has not yet shipped in a release build. I assume it will make it into the next major release after the current 3.6.x branch. The browser used in the BlackBerry 9700 also reportedly passes 100% of the test suite. Opera passes 100% of the baseline test suite. We have failures in the additional tests, which are related to bugs in our Selector implementation. This level of support has shipped in the recent 10.5x builds. WebKit (Safari and Chrome) is still failing 16 of the baseline tests. [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/ The test suite contains a test that asserts that an exception should be thrown when no arguments are passed to querySelector or querySelectorAll. Why is passing no parameter to querySelector/querySelectorAll expected to throw an exception, whereas passing an undefined value does not? The Selectors API specification mentions explicit undefineds being passed (and says, via Web IDL, that they stringify to undefined) - that's fine, but I cannot find the rules that govern omitted attributes. Presumably Web IDL must say something somewhere that's overridding the default ECMAScript rules on this sort of thing - but where precisely? Taking the null, explicit undefined and implicit undefined test cases together, I don't think I've got any two browsers here that behave the same way. :-/ -- Stewart Brodie Team Leader - ANT Galio Browser ANT Software Limited
Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
On 5/6/10 10:44 AM, Stewart Brodie wrote: Taking the null, explicit undefined and implicit undefined test cases together, I don't think I've got any two browsers here that behave the same way. :-/ Yes, that's why we can't exit CR. ;) Note that part of the issue here is that the spec flip-flopped on its desired behavior and some of the browsers' shipping versions are still implementing the previous version of the spec. -Boris
Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
+public-webapps, -team-webapps On 2010-05-04 18:23, Arthur Barstow wrote: The Selectors API Candidate says: [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-selectors-api-20091222/ There are several known implementations believed to be complete and interoperable (or on the point of being so) and the WebApps Working Group expects to develop a test suite and use it to show that that these implementations pass early in 2010. The Working Group does not plan to request to advance to Proposed Recommendation prior to 30 April 2010. There is no formal implementation report available at the present time. ]] What's the status and plan for this spec? I believe the test suite is nearly ready [1]. As I mentioned last year, Minefield currently passes 100% of the test suite. However, this has not yet shipped in a release build. I assume it will make it into the next major release after the current 3.6.x branch. The browser used in the BlackBerry 9700 also reportedly passes 100% of the test suite. Opera passes 100% of the baseline test suite. We have failures in the additional tests, which are related to bugs in our Selector implementation. This level of support has shipped in the recent 10.5x builds. WebKit (Safari and Chrome) is still failing 16 of the baseline tests. IE8 is failing 252 of the baseline tests. It exhibits a scripting error in the additional tests that prevents them from running, but I haven't investigated the cause. I have not been able to test IE9 because I don't have access to Windows Vista or 7. I would appreciate it if anyone who has a copy of the last public development build, or someone from Microsoft, could report on the implementation status in IE9. Given the implementations in Opera and Blackberry pass the baseline tests, we technically meet requirements in the proposed exit criteria [2], although I don't see any harm in waiting for the next major Firefox release build. I think only released builds, as opposed to development builds, should be used for meeting the implementation requirement. There was previously a question about whether JavaScript implementations should count, like JQuery. I don't think they should count because they are generally not subject to the same interoperability requirements as a native browser implementation are subject to. i.e. JavaScript implementations only have to work on sites where the author explicitly includes the script, browsers have to work on any site a user visits. I think we should produce some kind of implementation report documenting the results for each browser. P.S. Please feel free to send your response to public-webapps. OK. [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/1221.html -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: I have not been able to test IE9 because I don't have access to Windows Vista or 7. I would appreciate it if anyone who has a copy of the last public development build, or someone from Microsoft, could report on the implementation status in IE9. The current developer preview of IE9 fails all of the tests. I didn't investigate why, and the tools are extremely limited in any case right now. I can keep you updated when they update the Dev Preview. Something like... just now! ;-) Just tested the 2nd Platform Preview on Windows Vista. Scored: 001: 73.9%: 745 passed, 263 failed 002: 55.9%: 1222 passed, 966 failed 003: crashed -- Thomas Broyer /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/
