> ... > In contrast, it appears that current > versions of most browsers (e.g., Opera, IE, NS, FF) are "smart" about this > sort of thing now, and even though the standard is violated, will complete > the JS as intended given that a field can be uniquely identified. Obviously, > this isn't a defect with htmlunit. I suppose, this could be a feature > request to add a flag to do "loose" JS validation that would attempt to mimic > recent browser trends (for some subset of browsers). > This would likely include *much* more than my little example, and would be > very prohibitive to maintain accurately, so I'm not sure it would really be > worth it.
I see it as a defect of htmlunit and would recommend you to open an issue by htmlunit for it: htmlunit already accepts some unstandard stuff supported by browsers and this one could/should be supported too. Perhaps would it be interesting to have the possibility to run tests with a "strict" client too. If you open an issue, it would be interesting to see what is returned by standard browsers when both forms have a field with such a name. > Thanks so much for your timely help! I will likely implement webtest in > our QA environment as our HTML testing tool. can you tell a bit about what are the pros and cons you've seen in your evaluation. It may help future "evaluators". Marc. _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
