3 ms·
A suite of tests might be better: point them at a candidate browser and they'll tell you which naughty and which nice features that browser supports. Then poin
by __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
A suite of tests might be better: point them at a candidate browser and they'll tell you which naughty and which nice features that browser supports.
Then point the other half of the test suite at a candidate site and get a similar list of naughies and nices.
Conscientious technologists of the world can then refuse to support browsers or sites that test naughty.
This is my attempt to avoid preaching to the choir. Market share wise, only a tiny slice would opt into the non-evil browser. But it's that slice who also makes things work for the rest of the world, so:
> it's out of my scope of support unless it passes these tests
Might impact a wider audience.
- jefftk 3y ago> A suite of tests might be better: point them at a candidate browser and they'll tell you which naughty and which nice features that browser supports. Perhaps we could have a suite of Web Platform Tests? And we could host them at https://wpt.fyi https://wpt.fyi ?
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoYeah, something like that. If Google adds WEI to chromium, will wpt.fyi flag it as broken?
- jefftk 3y agoI was being a bit silly; wpt.fyi doesn't do the naughty/nice thing. If the WEI proposal keeps progressing towards a standard I'd expect that team to submit a test to WPT, yes.