IRC log of CSS on 2010-11-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:15:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
16:15:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:15:21 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
16:15:21 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
16:15:26 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:17:23 [TabAtkins]
Bert: Thanks!
16:23:05 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
16:54:55 [kojiishi]
kojiishi has joined #css
16:56:17 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:57:15 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:57:22 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
16:57:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were
16:59:08 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #css
16:59:12 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
16:59:19 [Zakim]
17:00:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.253.307.aaaa
17:00:07 [arron]
zakim, 253 is me
17:00:07 [Zakim]
sorry, arron, I do not recognize a party named '253'
17:00:25 [glazou]
Zakim, aaaa is arron
17:00:25 [Zakim]
+arron; got it
17:00:25 [arron]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:00:26 [Zakim]
sorry, arron, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
17:01:42 [Zakim]
17:01:44 [Zakim]
17:02:00 [Zakim]
17:02:02 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
17:02:10 [Zakim]
17:02:31 [kojiishi]
zakim, ??P9 is me
17:02:31 [Zakim]
+kojiishi; got it
17:02:39 [Zakim]
17:02:43 [Zakim]
17:03:10 [Zakim]
17:03:21 [Zakim]
17:03:22 [ChrisL]
ChrisL has joined #css
17:03:30 [Zakim]
17:03:36 [Zakim]
17:03:38 [kojiishi]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:03:38 [Zakim]
+kojiishi; got it
17:03:51 [fantasai]
Zakim, mute me
17:03:52 [Zakim]
fantasai should now be muted
17:04:47 [TabAtkins]
ScribeNick: TabAtkins
17:04:54 [Zakim]
+ +44.131.208.aabb
17:05:00 [gsnedders]
zakim, aabb is me
17:05:00 [Zakim]
+gsnedders; got it
17:05:04 [gsnedders]
zakim, mute me
17:05:04 [Zakim]
gsnedders should now be muted
17:05:24 [fantasai]
zakim, unmute me
17:05:24 [Zakim]
fantasai should no longer be muted
17:05:27 [TabAtkins]
glazou: Before testsuite discussion, anything else?
17:05:32 [TabAtkins]
ChrisL: Brief item.
17:05:47 [TabAtkins]
ChrisL: Liaison with epub, and whether the group is willing to do it.
17:05:54 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: We already resolved to do it at the FtF.
17:06:15 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I'd like to publish FPWD of Writing Modes.
17:06:33 [gsnedders]
Just to note, I've been busy with university stuff over the past few days, and am not entirely up-to-date on CSS 2.1 testsuite stuff.
17:06:48 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: jdaggett said he was okay with it.
17:06:56 [fantasai]
zakim, mute me
17:06:56 [Zakim]
fantasai should now be muted
17:07:28 [fantasai]
17:07:47 [TabAtkins]
RESOLVED: Elika is the liaison with epub.
17:08:02 [TabAtkins]
RESOLVED: Publish FPWD of Writing MOdes.
17:08:12 [ChrisL]
rrsagent, here
17:08:12 [RRSAgent]
17:08:21 [TabAtkins]
glazou: We have 107 tests that aren't passed by two impls.
17:08:34 [TabAtkins]
glazou: And over 9k tests that *are* passed by at least two.
17:08:39 [glazou]
17:08:48 [glazou][]=1&f[]=4&f[]=8&f[]=16
17:09:09 [fantasai]
17:09:15 [TabAtkins]
glazou: At the last call, vendors were asked to review these tests.
17:09:17 [fantasai]
links to the latest by filename
17:09:28 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: There's a lot of activity on the wiki and on the list.
17:10:17 [TabAtkins]
glazou: Tab, you sent an email about not having time to review yet?
17:10:33 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: Yeah, I'll review after I run the next RC in Chrome.
17:10:46 [TabAtkins]
glazou: What about tests that have no comments at all?
17:10:56 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: In some cases I didn't look at them because I don't really know about them.
17:11:02 [Bert]
zakim, mute me
17:11:02 [Zakim]
Bert should now be muted
17:11:26 [TabAtkins]
glazou: When is the next RC going to be published?
17:11:36 [fantasai]
zakim, unmute me
17:11:36 [Zakim]
fantasai should no longer be muted
17:11:41 [gsnedders]
zakim, unmute me
17:11:41 [Zakim]
gsnedders should no longer be muted
17:12:08 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I'm still working through the backlog of reported problems - I'm in mid October for feedback, and I think I have about two days of work left to fix all the errors.
17:12:18 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: So probably next week, but possibly I can make it happen this weekend.
17:13:00 [TabAtkins]
gsnedders: From our point of view, Oyvind was looking through the tests and was asking if we're delaying the next RC of the testsuite, what we'll doa bout the results deadline for the RC.
17:13:49 [TabAtkins]
glazou: I'm somewhat disappointed that we're not yet ready with all the reviews by now.
17:14:08 [gsnedders]
Nah, I was asking what we're doing about the expected date for IRs for the next RC
17:14:31 [gsnedders]
Given that the RC is later than the date mentioned in the resolutions from the last F2F
17:15:00 [ChrisL]
puzzled by links to tests
17:15:02 [ChrisL]
17:15:05 [Zakim]
17:15:19 [howcome]
howcome has joined #css
17:15:21 [ChrisL]
<b>Fatal error</b>: Call to a member function get_test_suite() on a non-object in <b>/sites/</b> on line <b>237</b><br />
17:15:27 [TabAtkins]
arron: Tab, can you run the tests that are on the wiki for now?
17:15:30 [glazou]
yes ChrisL just saw that
17:15:31 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: Yeah, I can do that.
17:15:32 [Bert]
(A number of tests is also marked invalid on the wiki, that also reduces the issues list considerably, doesn't it?)
17:15:56 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: Note that I wrote in a few places that Beta8 passes but not Beta6, because there are a few places where we fixed bugs.
17:16:12 [TabAtkins]
ChrisL: If you follow the link in the agenda to the test, you get an error message.
17:16:18 [plinss_][]=1&f[]=4&f[]=8&f[]=16
17:17:28 [TabAtkins]
plinss_: If you're just running a few tests for a new browser, please do the test in the harness.
17:17:28 [ChrisL]
bug in at-charset-013 - pass criteria are ambiguous
17:17:53 [fantasai]
ChrisL: please report any errors to public-css-testsuite / wiki error page
17:18:15 [ChrisL]
ok, thought we might fix some on the call
17:18:32 [TabAtkins]
arron: Peter, did you hook up the logic to display reftests correctly in the harness?
17:18:52 [TabAtkins]
glazou: I suggested in the agenda email to review some tests in the conf call.
17:19:08 [TabAtkins]
glazou: In the list of tests with 0 passes, we have a few with "invalid?" markers. Looking at these could be useful.
17:19:34 [glazou]
17:20:06 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: Looks like Oyvind marked it as invalid.
17:20:09 [gsnedders]
oyvind: ping?
17:20:35 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Given that the other tests pass, I'm guessing this will pass as soon as it's fixed.
17:20:52 [oyvind]
first of all, the version in the RC has been updated by fantasai
17:21:28 [oyvind]
the "invalid" word links to the mail I sent about the remaining issue -
17:22:04 [oyvind]
I don't have all the browsers listed (XP, not win7, for one), but IIRC Chrome still failed
17:22:18 [TabAtkins]
ChrisL: I dropped in a link to a particular test I thought might be quick to do.
17:22:39 [ChrisL]
17:23:49 [TabAtkins]
ChrisL: The text is two lines with identical text, and the pass condition says it passed if "Filler Text" is green. One line of "Filler Text" is. I think the pass condition should just be that both lines should be red.
17:24:10 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Some of the printing-related tests might pass on printers, for example.
17:24:20 [TabAtkins]
17:24:34 [TabAtkins]
howcome: I think you may be right, especially for cases where we know the test is valid and just need a pass.
17:24:50 [TabAtkins]
glazou: Print-related tests should also pass in Print Preview.
17:25:14 [TabAtkins]
ChrisL: There's some page-break-* tests that I suspect Prince will be more likely to pass.
17:26:21 [TabAtkins]
glazou: When could we get a Prince report?
17:26:23 [TabAtkins]
howcome: Dunno.
17:26:41 [TabAtkins]
glazou: You don't need the whole suite - just the 100 or less that don't have two passes yet.
17:26:42 [ChrisL]
here is the list of 100 tests
17:26:44 [ChrisL][]=1&f[]=4&f[]=8&f[]=16
17:26:58 [glazou]
17:27:52 [TabAtkins]
glazou: What other tests can we fix now?
17:28:05 [glazou]
17:28:32 [TabAtkins]
glazou: This is mentioned by Oyvind as probably invalid.
17:28:58 [gsnedders] is oyvind's email about it
17:29:28 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The test is correct - that's the intention of the spec.
17:29:33 [TabAtkins]
arron: But is the spec clear enough to say that?
17:30:01 [TabAtkins]
howcome: I don't see :first-page as applying...
17:30:19 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
17:30:26 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: If you force a break before the first page, it just puts the first page on a particular side. So the left page would be the first page, it's just on a different page than "normal".
17:30:34 [oyvind]
(this text was introduced as part of issue 160 btw)
17:31:27 [Bert]
zakim, unmute me
17:31:27 [Zakim]
Bert should no longer be muted
17:31:46 [Bert]
(I agree with Opera's interpretation: not the first page.)
17:31:52 [TabAtkins]
ACTION howcome to check first-page-selectors-003 to make sure it's valid.
17:31:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-277 - Check first-page-selectors-003 to make sure it's valid. [on Håkon Wium Lie - due 2010-12-01].
17:32:49 [TabAtkins]
plinss_: Some tests are somewhat ambiguous if someone isn't familiar with CSS's use of the term "box", because there's no visible box drawn on the page. Suggest updating to say "paragraph" or similar.
17:33:20 [fantasai]
plinss_: if you notice more such pages, please send a list to public-css-testsuite
17:33:54 [TabAtkins]
glazou: What about allowed-page-breaks-002?
17:34:19 [fantasai]
Wrt page-breaking, CSS3 Page is rather explicit about forcing a :left :first page
17:34:22 [fantasai]
"However, to force a ':left' or ':right' first page, authors MAY insert a page break before the first generated box (e.g., in HTML, specify this for the BODY element)."
17:34:25 [fantasai]
17:35:14 [TabAtkins]
glazou: Should we defer to next week after the review?
17:35:25 [oyvind]
allowed-page-breaks-002 assumes 4em is between three and four lines, but other than that I couldn't see anything obviously wrong (there's a negative margin whith trips us up a bit)
17:35:33 [TabAtkins]
glazou: I am *insisting* on these reviews.
17:36:13 [TabAtkins]
glazou: Hopefully this should further drastically reduce the number of <2 pass tests, so we can focus our attention on the handful of truly invalid ones.
17:36:24 [TabAtkins]
arron: I think there's another easy one to check.
17:36:25 [Bert]
(Yes, oyvind, that's what I thought, too. It needs a 'line-height' property to be sure.)
17:36:26 [oyvind]
fantasai: "page break" still suggests to me that there will actually be a page before it (though empty)
17:36:36 [TabAtkins]
arron: overflow-applies-to-010
17:36:41 [arron]
17:36:48 [dbaron]
Well, I was against that decision in the first place.
17:37:12 [TabAtkins]
arron: The spec currently matches this test, but no impl does it. I think the spec was changed here about a year ago.
17:37:22 [TabAtkins]
arron: So do we want to just reverse the spec change?
17:38:06 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: I wanted the spec to go the other way when we discussed it the last time.
17:38:17 [TabAtkins]
arron: And all impls would pass if we went back to what we had before.
17:39:03 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Could we just make it undefined in CSS2.1?
17:39:11 [TabAtkins]
glazou: If we make it undefined we just remove the test.
17:40:37 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I think we need a coherent model for outside/parent/whatever bullets before we can determine what this *should* do.
17:41:03 [TabAtkins]
RESOLVED: Change text surrounding overflow and bullets to make it explicitly undefined in CSS2.1.
17:43:13 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: text-transform-bicameral-008 is invalid and easy to fix - the test is explicitly stating that the same capital letter should downcase to two different lowercase letters.
17:43:23 [dbaron]
-004 has the same problem
17:43:32 [dbaron]
(but it's in the 0-pass list)
17:43:34 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: We shoudl just remove the couple of final-form letters that it's trying to test.
17:44:10 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Question on the run-in-contains tests.
17:44:21 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Nobody's said they're invalid, so what are we gonna do about them?
17:44:49 [TabAtkins]
dbaron: I've always been in favor of removing run-in from the spec, but...
17:45:00 [gsnedders]
text-transform-bicameral-004 apparently passes in IE9, FWIW
17:45:12 [fantasai]
Basically, if we're reviewing tests today, we should review tests that are not known invalid :)
17:45:22 [gsnedders]
oh, wait, 008
17:45:24 [gsnedders]
I can't read :)
17:45:24 [fantasai]
Because that doesn't depend on RC4
17:45:40 [dbaron]
gsnedders, we were discussing both
17:45:43 [ChrisL]
zakim, who is noisy?
17:45:55 [Zakim]
ChrisL, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bert (4%), TabAtkins (5%), David_Baron (77%)
17:46:04 [dbaron]
Zakim, mute David_Baron
17:46:04 [Zakim]
David_Baron should now be muted
17:46:19 [dbaron]
It's not noise from my end; probably bad cell connection.
17:46:23 [TabAtkins]
glazou: Do you have a suggestion for what do about the tests, elika?
17:46:30 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Nope.
17:47:19 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Let's assume the run-in-contains tests are valid. There's still only one pass.
17:47:26 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Does Prince support run-ins?
17:47:30 [TabAtkins]
howcome: ^^^
17:48:15 [TabAtkins]
howcome: I'm not sure, but I can check.
17:48:22 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Prince does support run-ins.
17:48:28 [ChrisL]
yes it does
17:48:32 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: So the way forward here would be to run these tests on Prince.
17:49:20 [anne]
anne has joined #css
17:49:20 [TabAtkins]
ChrisL: I've got the testsuite SVN pulled down locally, so I'll run them in Prince 7.1.
17:49:51 [gsnedders]
Make sure they're run with the file encoding as utf-8, if running locally
17:49:53 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I think I updated word-spacing-characters-001, and I don't recall getting many passes on it.
17:50:05 [fantasai]
17:50:08 [fantasai]
FF passes
17:51:35 [TabAtkins]
arron: I think IE9 passes all but the final one.
17:52:06 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: That one is pre, and also includes three kinds of whitespace - spaces, nbsp, and tabs.
17:54:04 [TabAtkins]
glazou: white-space-control-characters-001 is passed by FFb and Opera 11b.
17:54:29 [dbaron]
That's one of the ones I never managed to check.
17:55:25 [dbaron]
glazou, it's a reftest
17:55:47 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The margin-collapse-clear tests were due to a spec change recently, since the earlier behavior made no sense (clear could sometimes make an element move up).
17:55:47 [dbaron]
glazou, just load 001-ref in another tab and switch between them
17:55:56 [gsnedders]
white-space-control-characters-001 seems to have been broken in RC2, so maybe coming up in the list due to lack of reported results?
17:55:56 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: The tests are valid, they're just not passed by anyone yet.
17:56:41 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: At this point we either need to change the spec (which I don't think is a good idea) or we need impls to make a fix, so we can evaluate the web compat impact.
17:57:27 [TabAtkins]
glazou: How long do people think it will take to fix implementations?
17:57:42 [TabAtkins]
arron: I doubt IE9 will take this change, at least right now.
17:57:56 [TabAtkins]
gsnedders: We're unlikely to make it for Opera 11.
17:58:53 [TabAtkins]
glazou: What happens if we don't get two passes? This could potentially take months.
17:59:08 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins: We attempt to justify why the current spec is good, despite the lack of passes?
17:59:15 [TabAtkins]
glazou: The feature isn't at-risk, so we need to pass.
17:59:57 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I think if we get at least one impl so we can evaluate web compat, we can make a case as to why we don't have two passes for this case.
18:00:09 [TabAtkins]
glazou: When you say "make a case", do you mean when we discuss IRs with the director?
18:00:13 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: Yes.
18:00:49 [dbaron] passes in Firefox trunk but not in 4.0b6; I don't know why
18:00:59 [bradk]
Move to errata after REC?
18:01:15 [TabAtkins]
glazou: We have exit criteria decided *long* ago, and if we start to special-case things it's no good.
18:01:24 [TabAtkins]
fantasai: I don't think we'll have to do this for *any* other feature, just this one.
18:01:40 [dbaron]
er, never mind, I think it's related to the default font size requirement
18:01:55 [dbaron]
It passes with Firefox's default default font sizes, but not the default font sizes required by the test suite.
18:01:58 [TabAtkins]
glazou: Next week, *have reviews ready please*.
18:02:23 [fantasai]
dbaron: ???
18:02:27 [Zakim]
18:02:27 [bradk]
I mean, change the spec to match implementations, and then have an errata later on to change it back?
18:02:28 [Zakim]
18:02:28 [Zakim]
18:02:29 [Zakim]
18:02:30 [Zakim]
18:02:31 [Zakim]
18:02:34 [Zakim]
18:02:35 [Zakim]
18:02:35 [Zakim]
18:02:40 [Zakim]
18:02:53 [fantasai]
dbaron: THe test should be font-size independent
18:02:59 [TabAtkins]
bradk: That's such disgusting politics-maneuvering. >_<
18:03:01 [Zakim]
18:03:02 [Zakim]
18:03:03 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
18:03:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were glazou, +1.253.307.aaaa, arron, TabAtkins, Bert, plinss_, kojiishi, bradk, ChrisL, fantasai, David_Baron, +44.131.208.aabb, gsnedders, howcome
18:03:05 [dbaron]
fantasai, well, it's somehow profile-dependent
18:03:10 [fantasai]
18:03:19 [dbaron]
fantasai, it passes in a freshly created profile and fails in the profile I used for the test suite that has the preference tweaks
18:03:23 [bradk]
Yeah, I know, but it is only this one test...
18:03:51 [TabAtkins]
If it's only one test, I agree with elika that we should just get at least one impl and then try to justify it on its merits.
18:03:54 [fantasai]
I think it's more honest to just say we don't have the passes
18:04:19 [bradk]
It would get us a pass, if we are not willing to overlook implementations not being ready in time.
18:04:20 [fantasai]
I'm kindof annoyed Microsoft doesn't pass those tests :)
18:04:25 [fantasai]
They wrote them.
18:04:31 [fantasai]
And submitted them.
18:04:37 [fantasai]
And brought up the issue
18:04:38 [TabAtkins]
18:04:51 [fantasai]
That resulted in the edits to make them valid
18:05:34 [fantasai]
Which I agree with!
18:05:34 [arron]
Actually we never submitted those tests as official tests Ian added them to his suite and they got added that way.
18:06:00 [fantasai]
Ian added them to his suite, yes,
18:06:01 [arron]
the tests were created as a discussion point on Margin collapsing
18:06:05 [fantasai]
but they were also added directly to the test suite
18:06:16 [arron]
I didn't add them
18:06:19 [fantasai]
no, you didn't
18:06:22 [fantasai]
this was before your time
18:06:42 [arron]
Actually I wrote the tests for Markus and Alex to discuss
18:07:30 [ChrisL]
arron, fantasia - question about running from local svn checkout
18:07:36 [ChrisL]
should i be in approved\css2.1\src
18:07:47 [ChrisL]
and is it correct that there is no harness?
18:07:48 [fantasai]
ChrisL: depends on which tests you want to run
18:08:02 [fantasai]
ChrisL: Probably you want to build the test suite first
18:08:07 [ChrisL]
i want to run these
18:08:08 [ChrisL][]=1&f[]=4&f[]=8&f[]=16
18:08:29 [ChrisL]
the links are flat though while the svn is structured into directories per chapter
18:09:01 [ChrisL]
ok. and build can be doneon windows, or needs linux?
18:09:13 [fantasai]
I think it can be done on windows
18:09:17 [fantasai]
you need Perl and Python
18:10:32 [ChrisL]
i'm not seeing a makefile. i have cygwin (so bash shell, and perl, and python)
18:10:52 [fantasai]
give me one sec....
18:11:09 [fantasai]
18:11:12 [fantasai]
svn update
18:11:21 [fantasai]
18:11:29 [fantasai]
run ./tools/ from the top-level directory
18:11:53 [fantasai]
arron: So we discussed them, resolved to make the edits that made them valid, and accepted the tests into the test suite
18:12:38 [oyvind]
hm, doesn't white-space-control-characters-001 depend on there either being no font on the system with U+0098, or only fonts where that glyph is exactly 1em wide
18:12:43 [fantasai]
arron: You weren't officially submitting tests yourself, but we were still taking submissions at that time, and adding tests from an issue was an obvious thing to add
18:13:20 [fantasai]
oyvind: ???
18:13:43 [fantasai]
oyvind: U+0098 is START OF STRING
18:13:52 [fantasai]
oyvind: where is it occuring in the test?
18:14:47 [oyvind]
in between two spaces inside #div1, as far as I can see
18:15:07 [ChrisL]
ah, build fails with "import html5lib # Warning: This uses a patched version of html5lib"
18:15:24 [oyvind]
fantasai, assert is "White space processing model does not affect non white space control characters, in this case the 'Start of string' character."
18:15:27 [fantasai]
oh, I was looking at the wrong test
18:15:56 [fantasai]
ChrisL: The patch is in tools/CSSTestLib
18:16:03 [fantasai]
ChrisL: I forget what version it's against...
18:16:05 [fantasai]
18:17:00 [fantasai]
ChrisL: It's against changeset 1588:334d59049eb7
18:17:11 [fantasai]
ChrisL: How about I just zip up a copy and send it to you
18:17:12 [arron]
fantasai: I think the problem is we weren't actually submitting the tests at all.
18:17:35 [ChrisL]
fantasai yes that might be easier
18:17:40 [fantasai]
arron: I'm pretty sure either Markus or Alex said it was ok to add them to the test suite
18:17:52 [fantasai]
arron: I could be wrong
18:18:15 [fantasai]
arron: but I don't see why you wouldn't have wanted them to do so
18:19:53 [fantasai]
ChrisL: Sending now. Should appear in your mailbox in a few minutes
18:20:31 [fantasai]
anyway, I should go...
18:20:36 [arron]
fantasai: we don't want them submitted because they are incorrect. Or we think they are incorrect.
18:20:52 [fantasai]
arron: a) they were *already* submitted
18:21:03 [fantasai]
arron: b) the spec was updated with the *intention of making those tests valid*
18:21:43 [gsnedders]
Should reviews for changes to approved tests be sent to the list?
18:21:55 [arron]
a) they were not officially submitted by us they were only for talking points
18:21:56 [ChrisL]
fantasai, thanks
18:22:03 [fantasai]
gsnedders: yes
18:22:16 [fantasai]
arron: you're being too official
18:22:21 [arron]
b) teh spec was changed but it still does not clearly explain this case from what I read a couple of weeks ago.
18:22:35 [fantasai]
arron: "officially submitted" wasn't anything back then
18:22:38 [arron]
fantasai: I have to be on this
18:24:19 [fantasai]
arron: well, whether you think they were "officially submitted" or not, they're in the test suite
18:24:57 [fantasai]
arron: if you want to argue copyright violation, I'll argue they're covered under the Membership agreement which gives W3C right to use them
18:25:36 [fantasai]
arron: As for whether they're invalid, I'll have to write that up later
18:27:27 [arron]
fantasai: I wanted to remove them. You then re-added them. When I removed them they were invalid per the spec.
18:28:22 [arron]
fantasai: you may have re-added them but the problem is the tests do not match any implementation and probably won't because of interoperability on the web.
18:28:53 [fantasai]
arron: I re-added them because I don't think they're invalid
18:29:15 [fantasai]
arron: you can't unilaterally remove tests because *you* think they're invalid
18:29:25 [fantasai]
arron: if dbaron reviewed them and said they were invalid, then you could remove them
18:29:30 [arron]
Sure I can if they are owned by MS
18:29:37 [fantasai]
No, you can't
18:29:41 [fantasai]
Because they're not owned by MS
18:29:48 [fantasai]
MS has joint ownership with W3C
18:30:12 [fantasai]
Also, once the tests are released under BSD, you may own them, but everyone else has license to use whether you like it or not
18:30:23 [arron]
And they were invalid when I removed them.
18:30:32 [fantasai]
Again, that's your evaluation
18:30:38 [fantasai]
but only your evaluation
18:31:01 [fantasai]
Nobody else agreed they were invalid
18:31:13 [arron]
The spec was defined that way. It may not be now but it was
18:31:14 [fantasai]
which means your removal was not reviewed
18:31:31 [fantasai]
which means you were not allowed to remove them
18:32:19 [arron]
So you are saying I can never remove cases without approval.
18:32:27 [fantasai]
18:33:14 [fantasai]
Which means at least somebody else has to agree they should be removed
18:33:17 [fantasai]
and nobody else disagrees
18:33:40 [arron]
every implementation agrees with me
18:33:41 [fantasai]
(somebody else has to be a valid reviewer, i.e. not someone else at Microsoft but pretty much anybody else)
18:33:51 [fantasai]
implementation is a something, not a somebody
18:34:05 [arron]
true but this just means the spec is wrong
18:34:33 [fantasai]
Bugwards compat is not a design principle here.
18:34:40 [fantasai]
Web compat is.
18:34:56 [arron]
it will have to be if we break major sites and companies.
18:35:17 [fantasai]
if it breaks major sites and companies, it's web compat issue
18:35:26 [fantasai]
but nobody's argued that
18:35:56 [arron]
Yes but a company can't be expected to spend a million dollars changin all of their infrastructure just to match a CSS spec change
18:36:14 [fantasai]
Arron, I am not arguing this with you.
18:36:16 [TabAtkins]
I don't think you're listening to fantasai, arron.
18:37:32 [arron]
tabatkins, I am listening, We cannot remove cases without approval. We all agreed on the spec changes.
18:38:12 [TabAtkins]
I'm talkinga bout immediately above, where elika's saying that we *do* make changes for web compat, and you're saying "no, we have to make changes for web compat".
18:38:19 [arron]
I just don't think we correctly cover this case yet in the updates. And if we did then we will break sites which is something we just figuring out from current evaluation
18:40:18 [arron]
Well moving the element up is correct fro some sites though currently incorrect per the spec. The spec says you don't move the element up but this breaks sites too.
18:41:15 [arron]
and all implementations match. So it seems like the least resistance is to leave the implementations and change the tests and spec to match.
18:42:23 [arron]
This way we affect only a small number of sites that actually follow the current public spec and not the editors draft with the latest edits.
18:43:04 [arron]
that should have been editors draft and then current spec. I had those backwards
18:44:59 [dbaron]
fantasai, do you have a pointer to the spec change that the test in question is testing?
18:45:07 [dbaron]
fantasai, if you do, I could at least file a bug about it
18:45:12 [TabAtkins]
I'm not getting into an argument about margins anymore. I was just trying to interject and stop what I saw was some crosstalk.
18:47:16 [dbaron]
(those were 2 of the 3 tests that I never figured out)
18:52:13 [danielweck]
danielweck has joined #css
19:38:31 [karl]
karl has joined #CSS
19:42:41 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
19:55:29 [karl]
karl has joined #CSS
20:07:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
20:26:25 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
21:47:14 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css
23:02:56 [homata]
homata has joined #CSS
23:51:08 [nimbupani]
nimbupani has joined #css
23:58:29 [jdaggett]
jdaggett has joined #css