30 Nov 2010


See also: IRC log


Plh, krisk


phl are you around?

<jgraham> plh: ^

<plh> oops sorry

Hello David

<davidc> Hi, I may have to wander off, but I'll leave irc running...

lets get going

First I see no new bugs on approved tests

I removed video_003.htm from the approved folder

Also jgraham sent email to the list for harness (or rather framework) feedback

<jgraham> I will reply to davidc's comment at some point soon

<plh> It seems like the discussion related to JPEG Quality test wasn't a bug finally

OK lets move on then....

last week I sent email to the list about approving david's mathml tests

I didn't see any other feedback on the list

<plh> http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/DavidCarlisle/math-parse01.html


jgraham/gsnedders do you object to approving this test?

<plh> I think James said he was fine with the tests in the past

<plh> so, looks like we're ok


I'll take an action to move it to the approved folder

<davidc> thanks..

<plh> that's ACTION-14

with more participation it seems that we can again start to use action items

Lets move to the next agenda item TPAC follow-up

I'm looking at my meeting notes from the last meeting

see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Nov/0118.html

Has anyone heard back from Mozilla on wanting to help with the test runner?

<jgraham> I haven't heard anything

I'll ping him again and if he is busy will take on the work

<jgraham> I have some vauge plans in that direction of my own, but no running code

<jgraham> So I'm not committing to anything :)

<plh> we're almost done with adding php support and resolving the xss issue

OK - when it happens we'll need to update the wiki

<plh> just need to get a final stamp and it will be deployed

will the test.w3.org/html go away at some point?

<plh> I think so

<plh> we'll probably need to setup a redirect

The reason I ask is that I updated the wiki - with the first use javascript harness, then ref test, then self-describing test

<plh> I haven't made progress on the remote head

Plh if you could just send out the date (maybe a week before) that should be fine

<plh> I'll talk to the webmaster

jgraham sent email to the list - so I think we should revisit again next time

So I'll send out a proposal on a way to 'anchor' tests to the spec

The last item is about having a set date for approving all of philip taylors canvas tests

<jgraham> My p[roposal for that is to reuse the syntax Philip used for the <canvas> tests

<jgraham> (proposal for anchoring tests to the spec)


I picked 1/3/2010 (january) - does anyone object?

<plh> nope


<jgraham> no

ok then - I'll send email to Philip so he could plan on making updates if a bunch of feedback comes in closer to 1/3

Next agend item

<plh> <jgraham> My p[roposal for that is to reuse the syntax Philip used for the <canvas> tests

<plh> oops

<plh> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/test/track/actions/open

yes a few are old

<plh> ACTION-5: Complete window security tests (section 5.3.1) (Kris)

I'd still like to write some tests for that -

I can update the end date

I'll pick a date later in january

<plh> ACTION-6: Create Initial/Example set ref test for HTML5 Test Suite

<plh> (Jonathan)

<plh> I did create a reftest

<plh> so let's close that one

Action #6 is done then (I used this as the example at the wiki)

<plh> ACTION-7: Gather parsing tests, and write up about formats (Geoffrey)

<plh> do we know if he still intends to do so?

gsnedders are you still working on this old action item?

Lets close it, if he wants he can re-create an action item

<plh> ok, closed

The next item is test results

<plh> who gets to submit/update them? Based on that decision, I'd go through

<plh> the existing results and remove a few of them

<plh> right now, I just publish what I get

<plh> as far as I remember, only MS and Mozilla sent results

We should only have one person from the browser vendor submit test results for their browser

a vendor can appoint a person if the want

<plh> so, in that case, I'll remove the other results

<plh> since they didn't come from their associated vendor

<plh> so, no objection to me cleaning up the results?

we should have a list of vendors and their submitter

<plh> I'll go through the list of results and remove the ones that were not vetted. I'll update the report page to make that clear as well

<plh> James, no objection for me to remove test results for Opera? I don't believe you guys sent anything

<plh> there is also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Nov/0128.html

I read his email - the update to the main page is missing information on how to License a test contribution to the w3c

I think they can be merged - need have the license and good to have the steps on how to use hg

<jgraham> No, I think that publishing test results at all at this stage is hugely premature

<jgraham> I would generally prefer that we remove them all and come back to it when we have a meaningful number of tests

So the last item was to start to discuss rendering conformance

We have agreed that the spec doesn't require rendering, though this seems to be at odds with features like svg in html

or tables

or even html5 semantic tags

<jgraham> It's not really at odds with SVG

bad choice of words

<jgraham> I mean you are not really required to do anything with SVG elements except put them in the right namespace


<jgraham> The rendering section is kind of semi-normative

per the spec

that is the issue - 'kind of semi-normative'

<jgraham> That is, you are strongly encouraged to use the rendering rules it gives, but you have the freedom to adapt to the constraints of your device or whatever

The consern is that interop won't happen, though various browsers are HTML5 conformant

<jgraham> I think my position now is that making tests that depend on rendering rules is OK, as long as such tests are flagged as such

<jgraham> Similarly tests that depend on rendering of SVG or MathML

<davidc> fwiw I agree with jgraham

How about sematic tags?

<jgraham> I don't follow

for example how nesting works sub h1 get smaller

My consern is that we end up with tests for HR tag

that at 2px tall looks differenent in each browser depending upon how they render an inset

Another view is that in theory the css group would test rendering of sematic tags

<jgraham> It's pretty clear what can be tested; the things in the "rendering" section of the spec

I'll have to re-read that section

The spec needs to get more crisp

Shall we adjourn the meeting?

We meet again in two weeks

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/11/30 16:59:15 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: krisk
Inferring Scribes: krisk

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Plh, krisk
Present: Plh krisk

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Nov/0131.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 30 Nov 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-htmlt-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]