On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 5:49 PM, James Graham <ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: > Well, it would also make sense to have interop for editing of course :)
Not a single major browser has significant resources invested in working on their editing code. Until that changes, nothing much is going to happen. > I would certainly be in favour of someone pushing those tests through > review so that they can land in web-platform-tests, but historically we > haven't been that successful in getting review for large submissions > where no one is actively working on the code (e.g. [1] which has a lot > of tests, mostly written by me, for document loading). I don't really > know how to fix that other than say "it's OK to land stuff no one has > looked at because we can probably sort it out post-hoc", which has some > appeal, but also substantial downsides if no one is making even basic > checks for correct usage of the server or for patterns that are known to > result in unstable tests. I think unreviewed tests should still be run by browsers' automated testing framework (obviously unless they take too long, are unreliable, etc.). They just shouldn't be counted toward any claims of conformance. Even if the expected values are entirely silly, which they probably aren't, they'll still help regression testing. There's already an external set of tests that Mozilla runs (browserscope) which I think is wrong in a number of its expected results, but it's still been useful for catching regressions in my experience. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
