IRC log of htmlt on 2010-03-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:06:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #htmlt
16:06:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:07:07 [Zakim]
16:07:18 [plh]
Chair: Kris
16:07:31 [plh]
Meeting: HTML Test Suite task force
16:07:43 [paulc]
paulc has joined #HTMLT
16:08:31 [plh]
scribe: plh
16:08:55 [plh]
16:09:20 [plh]
Topic: Reviewing Test Case submission
16:09:47 [plh]
"Send email to the public-html-testsuite mailing list describing the test cases you are submitting as well as giving permission for their use as described in the licensing section above"
16:10:17 [plh]
16:10:59 [plh]
plh: folks need to go through the grant of license for legal reasons
16:11:49 [plh]
kris: we'll watch the mailing list and tell people to fill the form if necessary
16:12:07 [plh]
Send email to the public-html-testsuite mailing list describing the test cases you are submitting as well as giving permission for their use as described in the licensing section above, using the grant of license.
16:12:15 [plh]
(that's the new sentence)
16:13:08 [plh]
plh: we're covered for participants of the working group already. no need to fill the form.
16:13:57 [plh]
kris: so I can commit tests directly into mercurial?
16:13:59 [plh]
plh: yes
16:14:07 [plh]
kris: what about licensing information?
16:14:45 [paulc]
Can we reword the following: " For example you should treat all browsers the same, no special logic, test dependencies should be supported by all browsers."
16:15:45 [paulc]
For example you should treat all browsers the same. Your tests should not use any special logic for a specific browser."
16:16:09 [plh]
ACTION: plh to follow up on licensing information in test suite files
16:17:11 [paulc]
16:17:26 [plh]
Paul: [proposed wording for last sentence]
16:18:03 [plh]
Kris: accepted
16:18:26 [plh]
Topic: How to Report an Issue in the Test Suite
16:18:30 [plh]
16:19:33 [plh]
plh: we need to give directions on the kind of information needed in order to get proper feedback
16:19:54 [plh]
... such as which test and which version of the test
16:20:25 [plh]
kris: seems fine to me
16:20:40 [plh]
paul: why don't they file a bugzilla report on the test suite instead?
16:20:51 [plh]
kris: would be fine
16:21:20 [plh]
paul: it does require an account, but thinks about the wording in the working drafts.
16:21:35 [plh]
... the more people that do this by filling bugs, the easier it will be.
16:21:49 [plh]
... we should treat the test suite as a product of the working group
16:22:18 [plh]
... and if we discover that there is an error in the spec, we can file a bugzilla on the spec that points to the bugzilla on the test
16:22:29 [krisk]
OK - I'll update the wiki with this information
16:23:11 [plh]
kris: no sure why bugzilla didn't use my w3c credentials
16:23:17 [plh]
s/no sure/not sure/
16:24:07 [plh]
paul: w3c isn't using a federated identity system
16:24:40 [plh]
plh: correct, our system folks are implementing one (mercurial is an example of the future system)
16:25:07 [plh]
paul: there are in fact two bugs for the test suite in there
16:25:24 [plh]
... reuse text from the working draft status section
16:25:51 [plh]
Topic: Review and Approval Process
16:25:54 [plh]
16:26:40 [plh]
Paul: question: "Anyone in the HTML working group with the ability to read and understand the spec and a thorough understanding of how to write a good test case can review additions and changes to the Approved collection."
16:26:46 [plh]
... how do they declare their position?
16:26:56 [plh]
... is there some sort of voting mechanism?
16:27:06 [plh]
... how to we record the process?
16:27:30 [plh]
Kris: I would send a CfC on a set of test cases?
16:27:44 [paulc]
Is there a min bar ie. at least one reviewer?
16:27:53 [plh]
Paul: so no minimum bar to have at least one person to review the tests?
16:28:46 [plh]
Kris: I'd like to work that way: someone sends a test, get some feedback, make some changes, and then request for approval. the third party would say "looks good"
16:28:51 [plh]
paul: the page doesn't say that
16:29:35 [plh]
... btw, is it the task force that approves the tests or does the TF need to go back to the WG?
16:29:58 [plh]
... best is to have a proposed mechanism, and ask permission from the WG. after that, you'll be ok.
16:30:25 [plh]
... but you have to anticipate that somebody in the WG is going to be reluctant to engage in the TF and start a thread on the WG list instead
16:30:36 [plh]
... the chairs can then assign the matter to the TF
16:31:06 [plh]
... polish the 3 pages, then at some point, ask approval from the WG about the procedures established in the TF
16:31:30 [plh]
... but the text needs to be more explicit
16:31:54 [plh]
kris: agreed. needs more of the how, not just the who
16:38:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
16:39:01 [Zakim]
16:39:05 [Zakim]
16:39:18 [plh]
zakim, list attendees
16:39:18 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Plh, krisk, [Microsoft]
16:39:31 [plh]
zakim, drop Microsoft
16:39:31 [Zakim]
sorry, plh, I do not see a party named 'Microsoft'
16:39:33 [plh]
zakim, drop Microsoft.a
16:39:33 [Zakim]
[Microsoft.a] is being disconnected
16:39:34 [Zakim]
HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has ended
16:39:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were Plh, krisk, [Microsoft]
16:39:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
18:00:46 [plh]
plh has left #htmlt
18:48:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #htmlt
18:48:50 [Philip]
Philip has left #htmlt