See also: IRC log
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2008/08/06-wsc-minutes.html
Mez: approved.
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/actions/open
Mez: no issues needs to be resolved in meetings.
Mez: next week I'd like to dive in on features at risk
Mez: tests needed, how to test, mechanical parts of the standards
tlr: we have tables of
must/should. Go through that table and come up with scenarios
that test these options
... write scenarios, expected behavior, create
environment
... this approach will mostly work for section 5 and 6 in the
doc.
... section 7 (esp. 7.4) might need to create scenarios that
test deprecated behavior
Mez: any examples from other working groups?
tlr: (points to
www.w3.org/TR)
... clause, example, behaviour description (pass/fail),
expected/unexpected result.
... a table, implementation vs test case
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmldsig/report.html
ifette: for any test case, we
should release a test case file, instead of description of
testcases
... for instance a webserver configuration file
<tlr> +100 to ifette
Mez: for creating infrastructure, what kind of restrictions do we have?
tlr: do not want to pinpoint any
particular (bank) site as a bad example -- bad marketing
... the more concrete, for instance create a shell script which
can generate certificate examples, fake CAs
... some questions remains for how to install fake CA certs in
browsers
<tlr> ACTION: mez to inquire phb about ev cert for test environment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/13-wsc-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-500 - Inquire phb about ev cert for test environment [on Mary Ellen Zurko - due 2008-08-20].
ifette: adding an EV cert to a browser is user agent dependent.
johnath: might be problems creating a EV cert that would work on all browsers, but we should not depend on it.
Mez: no test infrastructure in cabforum, or others?
johnath: we can use debug builds to test, which can be used for certain edge cases and not intended for public use.
<tlr> (and actually, same question to jvkrey)
tlr: what kind of things exist in your (mozilla/opera) test infrastrucure, could we use?
johnath: alot of things can be used with firefox, but do not know how it will work for other browsers.
tlr: what do you have on the
server side?
... more work for us to come up with something, or can
Mozilla/Opera contribute with server side test cases?
johnath: i have no problem giving access to our tools, but our tools are built for mozilla products/environment
<tlr> (it might turn out that we're easier off *specifying* the tests, possibly the clients, and leaving it to the individual browser vendors to implement them in their respective frameworks)
tlr: i would be inclined to take
a look at the test specification, then include for instance an
apache configuration file.
... in certain specs we have had anonymous test results.
Implementation A, pass/fail. etc.
Mez: Reviewing browser APIs, to check if robustness criterias are adhered to. Any specific place to go to find this?
johnath: One example, for resizing a window to larger than the screen or moving off screen, the implementation will not do it. We have unit tests for these kind of things.
ifette: no guarantee that a brower do not have an exotic API for doing something in a non-standard way.
tlr: there are apis like open window with coordinates, a test could look like: click button -> open window at coordinate (10000,10000) -> check if the window was opened on screen.
ifette: needs to try different coordinates.
tlr: exercice known APIs.
... Add a checkbox; are there other ways to create the same
behavior?
Mez: for other tests, could there be a browser representative that could take care of this?
johnath: yes, I can answer them for Mozilla, of course there might be bugs.
Mez: Write up scenarios during
meetings.
... doesn't look like Mozilla/Opera have scenarios already
written up for immediate testing.
... we could try to create a scenario today.
tlr: looks like it is easier to distribute work so that people can write a test or two off-line.
Mez: experience tells me people
don't do it off-line.
... what would be the first action item?
<Mez> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/FeaturesAtRisk
tlr: 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 will be good starting points for testing, these are simple testcases, then we can go for the more complex ones later.
Mez: what's the next step?
tlr: Any volunteers?
Mez: we could target next week's
meeting for 6.1.1 or features at risk.
... there are outstanding issues on the table, we could target
6.1.1
tlr: expect 6.1.2 to be closely related to 6.1.1
Mez: will send e-mail, if someone picks it up that's great, otherwise target it for next week's meeting.
tlr: reviewing content altering proxies for mobiles. Especially if a proxy serves https content as http.
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/mid/OF6A396D5B.C319E834-ON8525749C.0041C8D5-8525749C.0041D63D@LocalDomain
<Mez> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Aug/0003.html