<div dir="ltr">FYI the test apparently looks for V0 API which is based on document.registerElement, hence the test fails.<div>I've filed a bug already, I'm sure they'll change that.</div><div><a href="https://github.com/NielsLeenheer/html5test/issues/501">https://github.com/NielsLeenheer/html5test/issues/501</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>However, it's surprising the only thing missing thing in WebKitGTK to be a fully ES2015 Standard compliant browser is the module export/import through `<script type=module>` which is shipped already in Safari, but it's not supported at all.</div><div><br></div><div>Is this something I could enable, maybe under experimental features, or not in the engine at all?</div><div><br></div><div>Thank You!</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Carlos Garcia Campos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgarcia@igalia.com" target="_blank">cgarcia@igalia.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">El lun, 03-04-2017 a las 18:43 -0500, Michael Catanzaro escribió:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I don't think Arch is missing build flags (in fact I strongly<br>
> encourage<br>
> using the defaults), I think it just needs more investigation. WebKit<br>
> does support CustomElementRegistry and customElements.define, so I'd<br>
> be<br>
> interested to know why it's not detected. It could be a WebKit bug,<br>
> or<br>
> it could be an html5test bug.<br>
><br>
> On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 22:36 +0100, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:<br>
> > What's the official WebKitGTK focus/priority then?<br>
><br>
> Fixing platform-specific bugs, improving overall robustness and<br>
> security, API improvements needed for desktop applications,<br>
> performance<br>
> in embedded and resource-constrained devices, WebRTC, and whatever<br>
> customers are paying us to work on. That's already a lot and we don't<br>
> have time for much more than that. We mostly leave web-facing feature<br>
> development to Apple because they are rich and we're not, and they're<br>
> doing a quite good job of it for us already IMO. When there are<br>
> platform-specific bits needed to make a feature work on Linux, we're<br>
> of<br>
> course interested in filling those in when we find time.<br>
<br>
</span>I disagree with this, we have worked in web features in the past even<br>
if nobody paid us for it, just for our own interests or because the<br>
community asked for a certain feature. It's true that we don't have as<br>
many resources as Apple, but I don't think we just wait until they<br>
develop features for us. We don't need to be rich to contribute web<br>
features to WebKit.<br>
<br>
> Michael<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> webkit-gtk mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:webkit-gtk@lists.webkit.org">webkit-gtk@lists.webkit.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-gtk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.webkit.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/webkit-gtk</a><br>
><br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Carlos Garcia Campos<br>
<a href="http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF3D322D0EC4582C3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/<wbr>pks/lookup?op=get&search=<wbr>0xF3D322D0EC4582C3</a></font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>