It makes sense to run WPT tests as HTTP URLs for conformance/regression
purposes.
It is fine to run WPT tests as file based URLs for development purposes.

Tooling should make it possible to run WPT tests as HTTP URLs for
development purposes with minimum to no cost.
We are not there yet.

Le lun. 15 mai 2017 à 22:08, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> a écrit :

> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> >> I think the main problem with not running a server is that behavior
> >> for file URLs is not defined. And browsers tend to impose different
> >> restrictions there. So you might end up debugging something only to
> >> later found out it didn't work due to file URL restrictions. And you
> >> can't guarantee that something will work from a file URL, because
> >> there's no agreement on what will.
> >
> > That's not an issue with most ref or testharness.js tests which tests
> > WebIDL, CSS OM, etc... because none of them have to do network
> > requests.
>
> Regardless of the feature, there's no defined agreement on how it
> should work when loaded from a file URL. A test author cannot divide
> "this can load from a file URL" from "this needs to be loaded over
> HTTP(S)". Except that loading over HTTP(S) always ought to work as
> that much we've written down in standards.
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Reply via email to