Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Lack of normative testable steps #29

Open
jan-ivar opened this issue Aug 8, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Lack of normative testable steps #29

jan-ivar opened this issue Aug 8, 2019 · 2 comments
Labels
Test needed WPT test needed

Comments

@jan-ivar
Copy link
Member

jan-ivar commented Aug 8, 2019

For this spec to be web compatible, I think it will need normative teeth, as well as be explicit about when and where it applies. E.g. #28. In general, I think it needs to either:

  1. Require other specs to normatively reference contentHint in explicit algorithms, or
  2. Take it upon itself to own and specify the relevant normative language additions on behalf of the specs it wants to influence, as a form of extension spec.

Then add tests that prove functionality (beyond the current getter/setter tests).
@aboba
Copy link
Contributor

aboba commented Aug 9, 2019 •
edited

The same criticism could be made of degradationPreference whose WPT tests only address getter/setter.

@aboba aboba mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2020
Closed
@alvestrand alvestrand added the Test needed WPT test needed label Mar 12, 2020
@alvestrand
Copy link
Contributor

I think the spec language is OK now, without the implementation having followed suit yet.
Test needed, I guess.

This was referenced Mar 13, 2020
Open
Closed
@aboba aboba mentioned this issue Mar 16, 2020
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Test needed WPT test needed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@alvestrand @aboba @jan-ivar