15:58:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #css
15:58:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/16-css-irc
15:58:41 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #css
15:58:54 <plinss> zakim, this is style
15:58:55 <Zakim> ok, plinss; that matches Style_CSS FP()12:00PM
15:59:33 <Ming> Ming has joined #css
15:59:51 <Zakim> +Bert
16:00:16 <anne> anne has left #css
16:00:20 <Zakim> +Ming
16:01:06 <melinda> melinda has joined #CSS
16:01:46 <jason_cranfordtea> jason_cranfordtea has joined #css
16:02:28 <Zakim> +jason_cranfordtea
16:02:38 <Zakim> +Melinda_Grant
16:02:44 <Zakim> +fantasai
16:03:13 <George> George has joined #css
16:03:32 <Zakim> +??P19
16:03:41 <George> Zakim, ??P19 is me
16:03:41 <Zakim> +George; got it
16:05:50 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:06:12 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
16:06:22 <dbaron> Zakim, [Mozilla] has David_Baron
16:06:22 <Zakim> +David_Baron; got it
16:06:29 <dbaron> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:06:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, plinss, Bert, Ming, jason_cranfordtea, Melinda_Grant, fantasai, George, [Mozilla]
16:06:31 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has David_Baron
16:07:56 <Arron> Arron has joined #CSS
16:08:23 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
16:08:51 <fantasai> Topic: Charter
16:08:59 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:09:07 <fantasai> Peter: I updated charter with Chris's feedback
16:09:11 <fantasai> Peter: Any comments?
16:09:25 <plinss> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/draft-charter2.html
16:09:35 <plinss> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/proposed-charter.html
16:10:14 <fantasai> Melinda: I have a concern
16:10:24 <fantasai> Melinda: Bullet number three we say "..."
16:10:30 <fantasai> Melinda: We should say for each feature
16:10:52 <fantasai> Melinda: It sounds like we musth have two complete implementations of the entire CSS2.1 rather than two implementations of each feature, etc.
16:11:22 <fantasai> Peter needs to check the process document
16:11:39 <melinda> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
16:11:39 <fantasai> David: Why was the wording about potentially merging and splitting modules taken out?
16:11:56 <fantasai> Peter: Since adding new modules would be done by amending the charter anyway
16:12:12 <fantasai> David: What would happen with the SVG features module that's being discussed?
16:12:17 <fantasai> David: Does that require rechartering?
16:12:19 <melinda> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr #2
16:12:23 <fantasai> David: Does it require amending the charter?
16:12:27 <fantasai> David: Or can we just do it?
16:12:27 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:13:37 <fantasai> Melinda: I didn't see any wording in the charter said that items not in the deliverables list can't be advanced along REC track
16:13:40 <alexmog> alexmog has joined #css
16:13:55 <fantasai> Peter: I didn't want to specifically call that out
16:14:33 <fantasai> Peter: We do want to focus on our deliverables and not get sidetracked
16:14:46 <fantasai> Peter: but I also don't want us to get stuck in charter process
16:15:16 <fantasai> Peter: Wrt CSS-SVG thing.. I'm not sure if that fits our definition of working with other groups
16:15:42 <fantasai> Melinda: We might want to ask Chris how he thinks we should handle these kinds of emergent things
16:16:13 <fantasai> dsinger: On the subject on other material, we can always discuss things on the mailing list and work on it
16:16:25 <fantasai> dsinger: but getting formal time on it, that requires having it in the charter
16:16:49 <fantasai> Peter: our focus should be driving our deliverables to REC
16:17:12 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
16:17:30 <fantasai> dbaron: I can see this CSS-SVG thing advancing quickly enough that we might have multiple implementations by the end of this charter period
16:17:43 <fantasai> dbaron: Do we want to just let that slip?
16:18:00 <fantasai> Peter: how do we split this with SVG?
16:18:09 <fantasai> dbaron: I think if we're adding features to CSS, it should be in CSS
16:18:20 <fantasai> Peter: Isn't there something about changing interpretations of SVG?
16:18:26 <fantasai> dbaron: there might have been a few details
16:18:35 <melinda> Bert, what could go wrong?
16:18:46 <Bert> :-)
16:19:13 <fantasai> Peter: I'll make a note to ask Chris about cross-group issues, where that should live in our charter, using this as an example
16:19:23 <fantasai> ACTION: Peter talk with Chris about cross-group issues
16:19:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Talk with Chris about cross-group issues [on Peter Linss - due 2008-07-23].
16:19:36 <fantasai> Bert: I think 11 RECs is a bit much
16:19:47 <fantasai> Bert: We have a list of priority things...
16:19:55 <fantasai> Bert: You really think we can make 11 RECs in just two years?
16:20:39 <fantasai> dbaron: Why did Paged Media get bumped up?
16:20:46 <fantasai> Elika: We're planning to publish Last Call this year
16:21:02 <fantasai> Elika: Doesn't make sense to amend charter right after it gets approved
16:21:25 <fantasai> Peter: A lot of the things in the list are small and/or far along
16:22:08 <fantasai> Elika: A lot of them depend on CSS2.1
16:22:17 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #css
16:22:41 <fantasai> Melinda: I think even if we only worked on CSS2.1, it would be a stretch to finish it in 2 years
16:23:20 <fantasai> fantasai agrees
16:23:46 <fantasai> Bert still thinks variables should not be on our charter
16:23:59 <fantasai> Bert: That's an architectural concern, not a process concern
16:24:02 <dsinger> perhaps each of the 11 should have a calendar, to show what needs done by when
16:24:17 <anne> anne has joined #css
16:24:38 <fantasai> Peter: I hear your argument, but if we have implementors who want to work on it, we need to work on a spec otherwise it'll happen outside the standardization process
16:25:05 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #css
16:25:39 <fantasai> dsinger: I wonder if for each of the 11 we have a calendar to show what needs to be done by when
16:26:04 <fantasai> dsinger: otherwise we'll procrastinate until the end of the 2 years and realize that we can't finish them all
16:28:00 <fantasai> Melinda: We maybe don't need it in the charter, but it would be a good companion document
16:28:08 <fantasai> Peter: Do we call out dependencies anywhere?
16:28:24 <fantasai> fantasai: Most docs depend on CSS2.1. If it doesn't make it, most things won't make it
16:28:57 <anne> Regrets + anne
16:29:08 <anne> (also for the next three weeks, as I'm on holiday)
16:29:19 <fantasai> Melinda: only Selectors doesn't
16:29:59 <fantasai> fantasai: Should put that in the charter. Any other dependencies can be tweaked out, but anything that depends on CSS2.1 depends on CSS2.1
16:30:47 <fantasai> fantasai: If 2.1 doesn't make it to REC, almost nothing else will no matter how ready
16:33:30 <fantasai> fantasai: Only Selectors and Media Queries are independent
16:34:33 <fantasai> Peter: I will call out the dependency on 2.1 in the charter
16:34:56 <fantasai> ACTION: Peter update charter in response to Melinda's comment on CR crit and 2.1 ep
16:34:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Update charter in response to Melinda's comment on CR crit and 2.1 ep [on Peter Linss - due 2008-07-23].
16:35:03 <fantasai> Topic: Color Module
16:35:41 <fantasai> Peter: We have permission to publish LC
16:35:53 <fantasai> Peter: Chris says we don't need to ask for permission here
16:36:05 <fantasai> dbaron: That was the transition request. What about the pub request?
16:36:14 <fantasai> dbaron: Did you request a publication date?
16:36:16 <fantasai> Peter: no
16:36:25 <fantasai> dbaron: I'll work on that then
16:36:32 <fantasai> Peter: Where are we with implementation reports?
16:36:41 <fantasai> dbaron: We're in good shape for implementations, but don't have reports
16:36:49 <fantasai> Peter: Can we generate those by the end of the LC period?
16:37:09 <fantasai> dbaron: Once the LC is published, the test suite will reflect a published spec
16:37:15 <fantasai> dbaron: then we can request implementation reports
16:37:25 <fantasai> ACTION: dbaron prepare implementation report template for CSS3 Color
16:37:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Prepare implementation report template for CSS3 Color [on David Baron - due 2008-07-23].
16:37:43 <fantasai> Topic: Marquee
16:37:50 <fantasai> Peter: Ready for LC?
16:38:25 <fantasai> fantasai: no. Still some issues with marquee-direction table
16:38:35 <fantasai> fantasai: sent message to www-style this morning
16:42:41 <fantasai> Peter: Let's not get into the technical discussion here
16:43:22 <fantasai> Peter: revisit in a week
16:43:28 <fantasai> Topic: Test Suite Harness
16:43:39 <fantasai> Peter: Wanted to let everyone know that there's a demo version online
16:44:18 <fantasai> dbaron: what does it do?
16:44:40 <Bert>     http://www.w3.org/2008/07/test-harness-css/
16:44:49 <fantasai> MWI test harness it is based off of : http://www.w3.org/2007/03/mth/harness
16:45:35 <fantasai> fantasai: it's Member-only until Dom has a chance to review the code
16:46:33 <fantasai> Peter: the goal is to make it easy to do implementation reports
16:47:06 <fantasai> Peter: The other thing I want to discuss, we've been tossing idea of building a test management system
16:47:13 <anne> (FWIW, I think both Media Queries and Selectors have a grammar dependency on CSS 2.1)
16:47:32 <fantasai> Peter: Allow people to submit tests, manage reviews and approvals, etc.
16:47:45 <fantasai> Peter: I don't think there's anything out there, we'd have to build one
16:48:01 <fantasai> Peter: HP is interested in contributing resources, wanted to put out a call to see if anyone else is interested
16:48:13 <fantasai> Peter: I'm not asking for answers or commitments, just give a thought
16:48:23 <fantasai> Peter: If there are questions about why or what's the value, let's hear them
16:48:45 <fantasai> Peter: I think having a system like this rapidly in place would be a big win for us, for CSS2.1 test suite in particular
16:49:06 <fantasai> Peter: If there's something open source out there that we can use, can be modified, etc. that will get us there rapidly, let us know?
16:49:21 <fantasai> Peter: We could use any able-bodied hands that can write PHP or whatever
16:49:42 <fantasai> dbaron: I wonder if we're being too picky about review reqs for the test suite
16:49:50 <fantasai> dbaron: Maybe we don't need as formal a review process as we have
16:49:58 <fantasai> dbaron: We should be trying to just get tests in
16:50:53 <fantasai> dbaron: Implementors can catch incorrect tests
16:51:00 <fantasai> Melinda: We are catching incorrect tests during the review process
16:51:39 <fantasai> Melinda: If we collected the thousands of tests on the Web, we could have a test suite with a lot of tests. Won't know how correct it is, or how much coverage
16:52:14 <fantasai> dbaron: My worry is that, if I want to contribute tests I don't know if the tests I want to write are in progress or if they're actually missing
16:52:24 <fantasai> Peter: That's one problem we want to solve with this test management system
16:52:36 <fantasai> Peter: It will include tests that have been submitted, tests that are in the system
16:52:50 <fantasai> Peter: One problem is tests ar currently hosted on submitters site, etc.
16:53:05 <anne> (I agree with dbaron that implementors will easily catch incorrect tests.)
16:53:08 <fantasai> Peter: I think it would be very beneficial for us to build software here
16:53:25 <fantasai> (anne, but not incorrect specs, which is something else I've been catching)
16:53:59 <anne> (Implementors are usually the ones catching spec bugs in my experience.)
16:53:59 <fantasai> Topic: Test Suite Interest Group
16:54:14 <fantasai> Peter: any thoughts?
16:54:35 <fantasai> Melinda: I think it'd just be more overhead
16:54:47 <fantasai> Bert: I'm sure there are people who are good in making test suites.
16:54:51 <fantasai> Bert: We are not that kind of people
16:55:09 <fantasai> Bert: Maybe we aren't attracting that kind of people because we aren't that kind of people
16:55:16 <fantasai> dbaron: I don't think we're not that kind of people
16:55:39 <melinda> s/just be more overhead/just be more overhead unless we identify the set of people who can really focus on this.
16:55:42 <fantasai> dbaron: I think the not finishing the test suite is another problem, but I don't think you'll be able to pull in random people who aren't good CSS people and have them write good CSS tests
16:56:23 <fantasai> Peter: I think the question is, there are people out there who could be involved, would we be more likely to get people involved by forming a separate interest group, or is just informally coordinating through our group enough?
16:56:57 <fantasai> Bert: How would that affect the organizations that we represent? Would it make a difference to any colleagues?
16:57:04 <fantasai> Melinda: Hp has maybe one person
16:57:25 <fantasai> Peter: I think HP has been demonstrating that we're dedicated to the test suites whether or not there's an interest group
16:57:50 <fantasai> Jason: I have a request from someone at AOL who is interested in joining this group. He might be someone to work on tests
16:58:16 <fantasai> Peter: I think the benefit of Interest Group is to allow non-W3C-Members to be formally involved. I think that's the only thing we'd gain by forming an interest group
16:58:24 <fantasai> Peter: Is that worth the extra overhead?
16:59:02 <fantasai> (for W3C, for participants in this group)
16:59:38 <fantasai> Peter: I see advantages and disadvantages 
16:59:39 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
16:59:55 <fantasai> Melinda: Could ask www-style if anyone would be interested in joining to work on tests one day per week
17:00:44 <dsinger> if making progress on items people care about have dates for test suites % completion, I bet we'll see more activity
17:01:15 <fantasai> fantasai: I think having a test day is a great idea
17:01:28 <fantasai> fantasai: Mozilla does something like that with bug days
17:02:06 <fantasai> Bert: I don't think test suites are inspiring enough
17:02:35 <dsinger> test suites are inspiring if their absence has negative consequences (like, you get dropped from the charter and you won't get published)
17:03:02 <fantasai> fantasai: we have several volunteers on the public test list who are writing tests because they think it's interesting
17:03:09 <fantasai> fantasai: I need help reviewing their tests
17:03:41 <dbaron> fantasai, is there a list somewhere of the tests that have been contributed that need review?
17:03:51 <fantasai> Melinda: I'd like to see a milestone schedule for CSS2.1, although i don't know how though
17:04:09 <fantasai> dbaron, I can't remember atm, I'll ping you after the meeting
17:04:24 <fantasai> melinda: Maybe Elika and I can discuss and toss something out next week
17:04:30 <dbaron> fantasai, not just for me... the list should be publicly available somewhere from Style/CSS/Test/
17:04:36 <fantasai> yes, you're absolutely right
17:04:40 <fantasai> Meeting closed
17:04:41 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:04:42 <Zakim> -George
17:04:42 <Zakim> -Melinda_Grant
17:04:43 <Zakim> -Ming
17:04:43 <Zakim> -plinss
17:04:45 <Zakim> -dsinger
17:04:49 <fantasai> I think I had a place to put that, but I don't remember if I updated it
17:04:53 <Zakim> -Bert
17:04:58 <Zakim> -jason_cranfordtea
17:05:00 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:05:04 <Zakim> -fantasai
17:05:06 <Zakim> Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:05:08 <Zakim> Attendees were dsinger, plinss, Bert, Ming, jason_cranfordtea, Melinda_Grant, fantasai, George, David_Baron, [Microsoft]
17:08:20 <fantasai> melinda: when did you want to discuss tests? Arron's interested, too
17:09:05 <George> George has left #css
17:18:55 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
18:08:03 <fantasai> RRSAgent: make logs public
18:08:07 <fantasai> RRSAgent: make minutes
18:08:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/16-css-minutes.html fantasai
18:09:15 <fantasai> sylvaing, Arron: I think we need to get MSFT to do a roll call at telecons. You guys don't speak up much, so I never know who to put on the attendees list
18:11:47 <fantasai> zakim, who was here?
18:11:47 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, fantasai.
18:18:25 <fantasai> Bert, I saw your note about issue 63 edits. Did you make any of the other open edits, or was that the only one?
18:19:07 <Bert> That was the last one and the only one I did at that time.
18:19:34 <Bert> You're saying that there are older ones still open?
18:19:53 <fantasai> yes. But perhaps you did them already?
18:23:10 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
18:23:25 <Bert> Nothing done between issues 38 and 63.
18:24:55 <Bert> Or at least not noted in the errata...
18:34:42 <dbaron_> dbaron_ has joined #css
18:38:55 <dbaron> pub request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jul/0027.html
18:41:23 <fantasai> anne: Implementors may be catching spec bugs, but I'm also running into spec bugs just by reviewing tests and noticing that the spec doesn't justify their assertions
18:46:03 <sylvaing> fantasai: alexmog and sylvaing were there
18:46:10 <fantasai> thanks sylvaing 
18:46:30 <fantasai> sylvaing: was Arron there too?
18:46:37 <sylvaing> we were a bit late. i can announce us in IRC when that happens ?
18:46:46 <fantasai> yes
18:46:58 <fantasai> that would be best, then it's sure to be in the minutes :)
18:47:04 <sylvaing> will do then
18:47:14 <fantasai> awesome
18:47:52 <sylvaing> Arron was not with us. Will let him answer.
18:49:55 <dbaron> sylvaing, when Zakim says "+[Microsoft.a]" you can say "Zakim, [Microsoft.a] has sylvaing, alexmog"
19:15:26 <melinda> melinda has joined #CSS
19:33:27 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
20:06:00 <Arron> I was on the call though I came a little late. No biggie if I didn't make the list of who attended
20:11:39 <anne> fantasai, sure, I was just agreeing that I think the review can be done after the test is already part of the testsuite
20:12:49 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
20:23:55 <anne> fantasai, fwiw, minimized testcases from Web pages reveal bugs in specs all the time when I'm doing QA work
20:24:04 <anne> fantasai, though less and less with HTML, admittedly
20:36:48 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
20:36:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #css
20:40:36 <jdaggett> jdaggett has joined #css
20:47:37 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #css
20:51:34 <sylvaing> dbaron, thanks for the tip
21:32:33 <sylvaing> sylvaing has joined #css
21:39:27 <Arron> Arron has joined #CSS
22:16:48 <fantasai> anne: there's an empty "incoming" directory in the test suite
22:17:04 <fantasai> anne: it would be great if we could take in submissions by putting them in there
22:17:15 <fantasai> anne: and then mark them reviewed by shifting them into the src directory
22:17:53 <fantasai> anne: but we can't exactly open up dev.w3.org to everyone
22:18:34 <fantasai> anne: also I'm sure quite a few people who would otherwise contribute test cases wouldn't be comfortable learning cvs...
22:19:35 <fantasai> anne: but if we kept the incoming test cases in cvs we could build them along with the reviewed tests
22:20:01 <fantasai> anne: which would solve dbaron's concern about seeing what's in progress
22:23:45 <fantasai> actually, even if we kept them in a different repository with open access, we could have the build scripts pull from that repository
22:26:01 <fantasai> keeping them in dev.w3.org would be a problem because we do want the original authors to be able to update the tests in response to comments
22:26:15 <fantasai> the current system is a problem because it makes it hard for someone /else/ to update the tests in response to comments