On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 07:18:45 UTC+2, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 10/10/12 1:13 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: > > OK – so if I understand the objection to testharness isn't anything in > > > testharness.js itself, but that it's an incomplete solution as it doesn't > > define an environment? > > That's _my_ primary objection, after looking at it briefly and seeing > how it works in practice.
Do you have a concrete suggestion for how to improve this, in a way that works cross-browser? AIUI (which is not very well, so please correct me if I am wrong), the Mozilla solution involves running a custom XPCOM-based web server, and thus is not very portable. The W3C solution is basically "there exists a server with a set of known subdomains and the ability to run PHP". When I have wanted to write tests for things that require multiple origins, I have assumed that the domain from which the tests are being served is unknown, but that there are sure to be some specific subdomains. This is far from ideal, but does allow me to make tests that are portable across our infrastructure and the W3C infrastructure. It also seems like they could, in principle, be ported to other infrastructure. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
