RE: URL bugs and next steps
[+Sebastian] From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl] > the state of the specification and testsuite. Worth pointing out, since I guess it hasn't been publicized beyond IRC: as part of the jsdom project [1] (which is a hobby of mine), Sebastian has been working on a reference implementation of the URL Standard that follows the spec fairly exactly [2]. Notably, this has allowed us to recover coverage numbers [3] for the web-platform-tests test suite. Currently they are not so great, at ~70% of the reference implementation, and thus presumably ~70% of the specification, covered by tests. We plan to work on expanding this to 100%, and to contribute those tests back to web-platform-tests as we go. This of course becomes even more powerful when combined with Sam's tooling for comparing cross-browser (and indeed cross-platform) results of the test suite. From there of course we fall back to the usual pattern, of evaluating UA compatibility vs. the spec, and fixing instances where the spec is misaligned with reality. But with 100% coverage we should be in a better starting position. [1]: https://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom [2]: https://github.com/jsdom/whatwg-url [3]: https://github.com/jsdom/whatwg-url/issues/8#issuecomment-109705181
Re: URL bugs and next steps
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > That's great but are we getting the implementations aligned? Yes, slowly. > My understanding is that implementations are still differing from the spec > and we weren't getting them to move. Reasons for that are differing between > the vendors. That is probably in part due to the specification having known outstanding issues and in part because changing URLs is tricky. Even small changes we made in Gecko have not been without issue. In any event, it seems somewhat premature to consider meeting over this (if that's at all warranted, it's all technical) given the state of the specification and testsuite. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: URL bugs and next steps
On 06/16/2015 10:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: Things haven't been moving at fixing the bugs in the URL specification. Sam has circulated a list of issues but did not receive much feedback. I figured the best way to understand to make progress would be to have a call so we can figure out the path forward and how we're going to fix the specification and the implementations. I'm in the process of fixing bugs and adding tests, actually. That's great but are we getting the implementations aligned? If you can attend, this would be helpful to make progress. There's quite a bit of outstanding feedback from various vendors that can be addressed first, I think. Not sure what you expect to resolve on this call? My understanding is that implementations are still differing from the spec and we weren't getting them to move. Reasons for that are differing between the vendors. My expectation for the call would be that we understand why that's the case and see if we can get a common understanding on how we can move forward to achieve interop. For example, the idea of having a f2f meeting was floated before and more recently. I'd like to know if there is indeed such interest before asking folks to cross continents or oceans. Philippe
Re: URL bugs and next steps
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > Things haven't been moving at fixing the bugs in the URL specification. Sam > has circulated a list of issues but did not receive much feedback. I figured > the best way to understand to make progress would be to have a call so we > can figure out the path forward and how we're going to fix the specification > and the implementations. I'm in the process of fixing bugs and adding tests, actually. > If you can attend, this would be helpful to make progress. There's quite a bit of outstanding feedback from various vendors that can be addressed first, I think. Not sure what you expect to resolve on this call? -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
