On 13 December 2012 19:21, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> 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@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
