Specifically on the subject of what URL spec to reference, I think it should be Mozilla's position (which I'm willing to represent) that the W3C HTML5 spec reference the dated URL spec[1] instead of the copy/paste/modified(even if informatively) W3C WebApps URL spec.
[1] https://whatwg.org/specs/url/2014-07-30/ I'd like to make this proposal on public-html (since I'm still at least somewhat participating in W3C HTMLWG) by Wednesday unless there are objections from Mozilla folks on this thread (which I expect 2 days sufficient to resolve). Usually I'd just go ahead with this proposal, but given the diversity of opinions on this thread, figured I'd see what folks here thought first. Regardless, I support providing that same feedback in our response to the W3C HTML5 PR. Thanks, Tantek On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 9/22/14, 1:18 PM, James Graham wrote: >> >> I think you'd get a better result by asking for agreement from all the >> relevant implementors that they felt that the spec was implementable. > > > The problem was that in some cases this was more a less a non-goal (in some > cases an anti-goal) for the spec editor. Hence the process bit to somewhat > force them to deal with the issue. :( > >> Of course in reality, if someone ships something that exposes their >> internals and content comes to depend on it, everyone else is forced to >> copy that behaviour anyway, with as much fidelity as they can. > > > Yes, true. > >> Specs are only helpful here in the face of good actors. > > > And in making it clear when people are being bad actors, yes. > >> As we both know, it's not unheard of for >> people to follow enough process to get their stuff to Rec. with two >> "interoperable" implementations, and gaping holes in the spec. > > > Indeed. > >>> Note that actually sanely testing something like navigation in >>> non-browser-specific ways is ... hard. Basic things like "open a >>> cross-origin window and wait for it to load" aren't really possible. :( >> >> >> Using window.open("http://some.cross.origin.url";), you mean? Couldn't >> you put a postMessage() in the load event of the opened document? > > > You can in some cases. In other cases (like when you're testing the nulling > out of window.opener by callers to disconnnect the callee from them, or > testing opening of sandboxed things that shouldn't be allowed to run script) > this is not an option. > >> It requires your test to go async > > > You need that anyway for window.open, so that's not an issue. > >> and depends on how precise your needs are of course. > > > Right. > >> There is a hope that over time we can address more use cases that need >> access to privileged APIs. There is a work in progress that will allow >> using WebDriver from test cases, for example. It's not clear that this >> will allow us to meet all needs, but it should make a difference in some >> cases. > > > Yeah, I'm very much looking forward to this. > >> https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/282 > > > Thank you. This is definitely something we should find time to review.... > > > -Boris > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
