wpt VS Scrawl-canvas

To reply mostly with my WPT Core Team hat off, mostly summarising the history of how we've ended up here:

A build script used by significant swaths of the test suite is almost certainly out; it turns out people like being able to edit the tests they're actually running. (We _do_ have some build scripts — but they're mostly just mechanically generating lots of similar tests.

A lot of the goal of WPT (and the HTML Test Suite, which it effectively grew out of) has been to have a test suite that browsers are actually running in CI: historically, most standards test suites haven't been particularly amenable to automation (often a lot of, or exclusively, manual tests, little concern for flakiness, etc.), and with a lot of policy choices that effectively made browser vendors choose to write tests for themselves and not add new tests to the shared test suite: if you make it notably harder to write tests for the shared test suite, most engineers at a given vendor are simply going to not bother.

As such, there's a lot of hesitancy towards anything that regresses the developer experience for browser engineers (and realistically, browser engineers, by virtue of sheer number, are the ones who are writing the most tests for web technologies).

That said, there are probably ways we could make things better: a decent number of tests for things like Grid use check-layout-th.js (e.g., https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/f763dd7d7b7ed...).

One could definitely imagine a world in which these are a test type of their own, and the test logic (in check-layout-th.js) can be rewritten in a custom test harness to do the same comparisons in an implementation without any JS support.

The other challenge for things like Taffy only targeting flexbox and grid is we're unlikely to add any easy way to distinguish tests which are testing interactions with other layout features (`position: absolute` comes to mind!).

My suggestion would probably be to start with an issue at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/rfcs/issues, describing the rough constraints, and potentially with one or two possible solutions.

It also helps that there are tests

https://web-platform-tests.org/

You can see how Mozilla tests the compliance of their built-in elements in the Gecko repository (the ok and is assertions are defined in their SimpleTest testing framework). And here's the Web Platform Tests' reflection harness, with data for each built-in element in sibling files, that almost every browser pass.

We have our own test suite (orginally derived from the test suite of Meta's Yoga layout library [0]) which consists of text fixtures that are small HTML snippets [1] and a test harness [2] that turns those into runnable tests, utilising headless chrome both to parse the HTML and to generate the assertions based on the layout that Chrome renders (so we are effectively comparing our implementation against Chrome). We currently have 686 generated tests (covering both Flexbox and CSS Grid).

We would like to utilise the Web Platform Test suite [3], however these are not in a standard format and many of the tests require JavaScript so we are not currently able to do that.

[0]: https://github.com/facebook/yoga

[1]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/test_fixtures

[2]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/scripts/gentes...

[3]: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/cs...

The metrics are based on the passing rate for the web-platform-tests (WPT) project, the automated test suite for web standards. The completion rate is categorised as either stable, or experimental. There is no definition of what experimental entails, presumably features that are behind experimental flags are included. Stable is better to go off in any case.

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. You can run WPT MSE https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/media-source and WebCodecs https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/webcodecs tests manually to learn by doing.

Manually running the tests in Web Platform Tests should keep you busy.

Not sure what you mean? I referred to Web API's, which generally means Web platform API's; that is Web platform API's tested by Web Platform Tests https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.

If you want CSS to be the same across browsers then help implement CSS tests and file bugs

https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/Overview.en.html

https://web-platform-tests.org/

better specs are great, but tests will actually find the edge cases and lead to more convergence.

Run all these tests locally https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/dom.

I don't like Typescript because it forces me to think about types and data structures and stuff. Which is a Good Thing because I absolutely have to think about that stuff when working on large codebases with a team of colleagues: without the inline documentation and text editor help TS gives me when working on those codebases I'd be (at least!) 10x slower when refactoring old code or adding new code. And nobody wants to pay a slow developer!

However ... the one place I refuse to use Typescript is in my side project - a JS canvas library. I can justify this because: 1. it's a big codebase, but I know every line of it intimately having spent the last 10 years (re-)writing it; 2. nobody else contributes (and I kinda like it that way); and 3. I keep a close eye on competing canvas libraries and I've watched several of them go through the immense (frustrating!) work of converting their codebases to TS over the past few years and, seriously, I don't need that pain in my not-paid-for life.

Even so, I do maintain a .d.ts file for the library's 'API' (the functions devs would use when building a canvas using my library) because the testing, documentation and autocompletion help it offers is too useful to ignore. It is additional work, but it's just one file[1] and I can live with that.

[1] https://github.com/KaliedaRik/Scrawl-canvas/blob/v8/source/s...

> working with glyphs and iterating them in reverse for RTL is brain-breaking. And line wrapping gets really complicated. It's also the most obscure because nobody has written down everything you need to know in one place

I can confirm this. I've been working on a (much simpler!) text layout engine for my canvas library over the past couple of months and the amount of complexity associated with just stamping some glyphs onto a canvas has left me screaming at my laptop on an almost daily basis. Getting a decent underline was a proud moment!

Question: did you ever find out what algorithm the various browsers are using to calculate how many words can fit on a given line? I'm almost there, except words will occasionally jump between lines when I scale the text. Really annoying!

The PR's still a work in progress, but I've got all the functionality I want in there (shaping lines to fit in non-rectangular containers, styling text, text along a non-straight line, dynamic updates, etc). Just need to test and document it all now ... https://github.com/KaliedaRik/Scrawl-canvas/pull/75

I've got myself organised and prepared a List Of Things To Do[1] to make my 2D Javascript library even better than it already is. Given that I've been working on the library for over 10 years now, and have never before set out such a list, I call this Progress!

[1] https://github.com/KaliedaRik/Scrawl-canvas/discussions/cate...

'Kay, I don't know if this anywhere close to what the OP wants, but this sort of live browser tab manipulation is possible to do using a mix of a a canvas element and the browser's Screen Capture API[1] (plus my JS canvas library, once I merge and publish the changes into its next release[2]).

This solution[3] shows the modified browser tab in a separate browser tab. I've got no idea whether it's possible to do the same sort of trick in the same tab (but probably not). I also have no idea how secure the Screen Capture API is - I'd get very nervous about doing this sort of thing when looking at my bank's online portal!

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Screen_Capt...

[2] https://github.com/KaliedaRik/Scrawl-canvas/pull/57

[3] Youtube video of the effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCi6LmKMAo0

My canvas library's README[1] has a video embedded in it. FWIW I'm not convinced it adds anything to the library's sales pitch.

[1] https://github.com/KaliedaRik/Scrawl-canvas

> And I’m just mentioning some of the unfixable problems with this approach

I agree that using a canvas instead of leveraging existing accessibility supplied by HTML/CSS/JS and the DOM is an accessibility nightmare.

However, I disagree that canvas accessibility issues are "unfixable". Difficult? Yes. But not unfixable. In my view, the element works best in partnership with its wider environment (HTML/CSS/JS and the DOM), not as a replacement for it. With that in mind, we can start to tackle the accessibility issues you raise - fonts, links, interactions, etc.[1][2]

I have an ambition to one day become intelligent enough to understand/code in Rust, and I'm really glad to see that people are thinking about accessibility as a fundamental part of UIs being developed in Rust.

[1] - Which is what my JS 2d canvas library tries to do: https://scrawl-v8.rikweb.org.uk/

[2] - My thoughts on accessibility, and how I try to fix them using my library: https://scrawl-v8.rikweb.org.uk/learn/eleventh-lesson/

If, however, your company is set on this course, I very strongly suggest you use a canvas library - if only for the MVP. Here's my canvas library (spam alert!) ... even if you don't use it in your product, the library might help give you some ideas on how to overcome some of the responsive, interactive and accessibility issues you'll be facing.

Scrawl-canvas - example and another example (links to code at bottom of each page)