A DOM use case that can't be emulated with direct proxies

Alex Russell slightlyoff at google.com
Fri Dec 14 05:22:26 PST 2012


+1. What Andreas said.

On Friday, December 14, 2012, Andreas Rossberg wrote:

> On 13 December 2012 19:21, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>> As you say, to remain viable, it
> >>> must be done quickly. From previous experience, I suggest that there's
> >>> exactly one way to get quick universal deployment: add a test to
> >>> test262 that fails when a browser's WindowProxy object violates this
> >>> normative part of the ES5 spec.
> >>
> >> I feel such a test would rather belong to the HTML DOM. But either way,
> I
> >> agree.
> >
> > The spec that it violates is ES5.1. Therefore it will be
> > uncontroversial to put such tests into test262.
>
> I have to strongly disagree here. By this argument, we could put in a
> test for any JS extension in the world that potentially violates
> proper ES semantics. I think test262 should test ECMA-262, nothing
> else.
>
> In particular, consider that test262 currently is a headless test,
> i.e. no browser needed, a shell like d8 or jsc is enough to run it.
> Putting in browser-specific tests would put a _huge_ burden on all
> kinds of automated testing environments running this suite.
>
> /Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org <javascript:;>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121214/49a602dc/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list