mshtml: Added beginning ActiveX tests.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com> writes:

> I can see that these tests may be useful sometimes, eg. if someone is
> interested in old apps that don't run on new Windows. But the honest
> true is that it's not what happens with our tests. All we usually do
> with old Windows or old IEs is blindly (well, not always, you do
> better than that) marking them as broken. The result is that our tests
> have more complicated code and are less strict. Thus my personal
> strategy is different: leave win9x (or old IEs for that matter) alone
> as long as they don't cause troubles. As soon as there is a trouble
> with a test on a platform that I don't care about, I just disable the
> whole file. This way I don't waste my time on uninteresting platforms,
> the code stays cleaner and tests remain stricter, giving win9x tests a
> chance to prove itself. I've already sent quite a few patches applying
> this strategy to different tests.

The value of running tests on Win9x these days is certainly questionable.
We don't try to emulate the Win9x behavior anyway, except in a very few
cases (which most likely don't have tests...) so it only serves to
document historical behavior that nobody cares about any longer.

I wouldn't be opposed to switching off win9x test runs and getting rid
of the corresponding broken().

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org