On 11/19/2014 09:55 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:ru...@intertwingly.net]
These results compare user agents against each other. The testdata
is provided for reference.
Then why is testdata listed as a user agent?
It clearly is mislabled. Pull requests welcome. :-)
I am not of the opinion that the testdata should be treated as
anything other than as a proposal at this point. Or to put it
another way, if browser behavior is converging to something other
than what than what the spec says, then perhaps it is the spec that
should change.
Sure. But I was hoping to see a list of user agents that differed
from the test data, so we could target the problematic cases. As is
I'm not sure how to interpret a row that reads "user agents with
differences: testdata chrome firefox ie" versus one that reads "user
agents with differences: ie safari".
I guess I didn't make the point clearly before. This is not a waterfall
process where somebody writes down a spec and expects implementations to
eventually catch up. That line of thinking sometimes leads to browsers
closing issues as WONTFIX. For example:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=257354
Instead I hope that the spec is open to change (and, actually, the list
of open bug reports is clear evidence that this is the case), and that
implies that "differing from the spec" isn't isomorphically equal to
"problematic case". More precisely: it may be the spec that needs to
change.
web-platform-tests is huge. I only need a small piece. So for
now, I'm making do with a "wget" in my Makefile, and two patch
files which cover material that hasn't yet made it upstream.
Right, I was suggesting the other way around: hosting the
evolving-along-with-the-standard testdata.txt inside whatwg/url, and
letting web-platform-tests pull that in (with e.g. a submodule).
Works for me :-)
That being said, there seems to be a highly evolved review process for
test data, and on the face of it, that seems to be something worth
keeping. Unless there is evidence that it is broken, I'd be inclined to
keep it as it is.
In fact, once I have refactored the test data from the javascript code
in my setter tests, I'll likely suggest that it be added to
web-platform-tests.
- Sam Ruby
