On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, Maciej Katafiasz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Although I forgot to add that programmatic browsing also allows us to
> test user interaction, which can't be done with HTML unification
> alone. That allows testing things such as changing the display mode in
> widgets that depend on "before" as much as "after" for correctness.
Though on yet another hand (third time lucky...), those are really two
separate areas of testing (output vs. behaviour testing). And you
could presumably use both models in conjunction (ie. unify, request,
unify the response), but then the problem is that Stephen's work is
based on CXML, and not closure-html. Stephen, why exactly is that? The
problem is that weblocks does not output XHTML[*] but HTML, and
browsers see it as such. Thus it should be parsed by a HTML parser.
It'd be silly to have to require both CXML and closure-html to parse
the output of the same request twice and process it in different ways.
Cheers,
Maciej
[*] There are many reasons, not the least important of which is that
no-one actually wants to send XHTML, despite what they claim. XHTML is
a very different beasts from HTML, behaves in a number of counter-
intuitive and confusing ways, and is generally not such a good idea.
It's very good thing that you *won't* be sending XHTML, no matter the
number of doctypes you specify, unless the MIME type sent by the
server is 'application/xhtml+xml'.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"weblocks" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
