You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
responsexml-document-properties.htm does not seem supported by specs #2668
Hm..I think I asked around for opinions, not sure if I heard back from @annevk or not and I won't spend time looking up E-mails. (I was at Opera back then anyway, don't have that mailbox anymore so it might simply be lost). I think the conclusion back then was along the lines of "assert what a few browers seem to have converged on, we'll get to standardising this later". The history of the test and why it's written like that isn't important, what it should be asserting is. I'd be open to arguments that this is a test suite for XHR and we should refrain from testing stuff that really belongs elsewhere, like the properties defined on a Document or XMLDocument - if you @domenic will argue we should simplify the test and drop all assertations for document properties I can agree that would make some sense. It's still somewhat useful to check what interface/prototype browsers use for xhr.responseXML documents - coding suggestions welcome.
Activity
annevk commentedon Mar 14, 2016
Yeah, it's in fact the opposite.
@hallvors changed the expectations in e3ce86d without consulting with me (I think I'm the original author of this test).
hallvors commentedon Mar 14, 2016
Hm..I think I asked around for opinions, not sure if I heard back from @annevk or not and I won't spend time looking up E-mails. (I was at Opera back then anyway, don't have that mailbox anymore so it might simply be lost). I think the conclusion back then was along the lines of "assert what a few browers seem to have converged on, we'll get to standardising this later". The history of the test and why it's written like that isn't important, what it should be asserting is. I'd be open to arguments that this is a test suite for XHR and we should refrain from testing stuff that really belongs elsewhere, like the properties defined on a Document or XMLDocument - if you @domenic will argue we should simplify the test and drop all assertations for document properties I can agree that would make some sense. It's still somewhat useful to check what interface/prototype browsers use for xhr.responseXML documents - coding suggestions welcome.
annevk commentedon Mar 14, 2016
I think we should assert those properties, we should just make them assert the correct values. Which e.g., for
document.domainis the empty string.annevk commentedon Feb 20, 2017
We should first sort whatwg/dom#221 before we can fix this.
Bug 1276438 part 4. Move the .body getter from HTMLDocument to Docume…
Move the .body getter from HTMLDocument to Document.
Bug 1276438 part 4. Move the .body getter from HTMLDocument to Docume…
Bug 1276438 part 4. Move the .body getter from HTMLDocument to Docume…
Bug 1276438 part 4. Move the .body getter from HTMLDocument to Docume…