See also: IRC log
PL: Anything to add?
PL: We are past deadline for LC for CSS 2.1. But are there changes still expected?
CL: I think we can publish. No major changes.
<ChrisL> We are better to publish now and dealwith any changes as lc comments
AE: Ditto.
RESOLUTION: publish CSS 2.1 as last call
PL: Are all edits in the text?
BB: Yes.
TA: How do we note the failures?
DB: I didn't comment on some tests, because I think the test is correct.
PL: Other implementers?
CL: I did some of the Prince tests.
<dbaron> That said, I think it's a lot easier to prove a test incorrect than to prove a test correct.
CL: But some problems with building the suite.
... Worked with some old tests.
... So need to check against new ones.
<dbaron> (and the "some tests" I mentioned are those that are tests for features Gecko implements)
<plinss_> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027.zip
PL: RC3 is in harness. SVN head version largely the same.
JJ: Yes, same as 1027.
PL: What is in RC3 is largely not changed.
... What shows up on blocking page is not yet marked in database.
... What is on wiki has been marked.
JJ: Do we have updated timeline?
EE: Waiting for some replies from Arron. And a number of comments on MS tests not yet addressed.
AE: Probably just lost in the hundreds of
pages... I'm going through hundreds of e-mails, but so far I have zero edits
still to make.
... Will reply to you as soon as I checked all e-mail. They are not all tagged
correctly.
... Will try this week.
EE: Any that you didn't change?
AE: I've changed all, as far as I know.
PL: Everything that is marked as invalid in harness has been chnaged in RC4?
EE: Do you have a link?
<plinss_> http://test.csswg.org/harness/results?s=CSS21_%HTML_RC3&t=0&f[]=1&f[]=2&f[]=4&f[]=16
JJ: We can move forward without waiting for Arron's mail, I hope?
EE: Let me verify.
JJ: Just wanting to streamline the process.
EE: OK, don't need to wait for Arron.
... I'll go through my e-mails.
JJ: Yes, Arron can do this, but just no need to block RC4.
PL: Only run changed tests, no need to run all
tests of RC4. Harness can show that.
... So we're left with the tests we're blocked on...
<TabAtkins> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-family-rule-011.htm
<plinss_> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/font-family-rule-011.htm
TA: Question on one test [see URL above]
... Unquoted "default" keyword.
... Is that a keyword in CSS2?
<oyvind> it's reserved
DB: I think it is reserved.
... In the para "If quoting is omitted..."
<ChrisL> reserved for future expansion
TA: OK, that's is confusing. We were looking at
the syntax.
... It will mean either 'initial' or 'inherit', won't it?
<dbaron> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-family-prop says:
<dbaron> The keywords 'initial' and 'default' are reserved for future use and must also be quoted when used as font names. UAs must not consider these keywords as matching the '<family-name>' type.
DB: That is the idea, but not sure we'll actually do it.
TA: I think I have all the fonts, but I stil don't get all columns numbered.
CL: That is wrong, then.
TA: But should we test whether the font works, or whether it bolds?
AE: Mail John with the issue.
DB: I get all numbers in Chrome on Linux.
TA: I get some only, this is on Windows.
PL: font-family-rule-011 passes in IE and Chrome, according to your report.
TA: Let me check...
... No, it doesn't. I must have hit the wrong button.
PL: Then I will update the DB accordingly.
HL: I talked to Prince. Maybe they can help with run-in, but I have no results yet.
PL: We have one pass on most of those.
JJ: IE passes about ten of them.
TA: I have one more issue:
<TabAtkins> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/run-in-breaking-002.htm
TA: We have the wrong borders. Is that significant?
DB: The test asserts line breaking and borders must be correct.
SF: Webkit fails, it seems.
BK: Looks right in my webkit...
TA: Is there a similar test without run-in?
DB: I'm not sure the border assertion is actually
correct.
... It is a ltr run-in and a rtl block. I'll have to check that.
<bradk> I take it back. The missing borders are on the opposite sides of what the text says
JJ: Chrome breaking looks correct.
TA: Not sure. Should it be on the other side?
BK: Maybe the spec is wrong then.
TA: We still not pass background intrinsic, but I'll need to study that more carefully first.
BK: Contradiction? Test says there should be no border there.
DB: I don't think the test is ambiguous. But it may be incorrect.
TA: But it says there should be a border between "header" and "Start".
DB: Ah yes.
PL: Are we agreeing on the spec?
DB: I think Chrome is correct. The test assertion needs to be corrected.
JJ: IE has a catastrophic break, but if we ignore that, it matches Chrome.
PL: Does somebody ping Boris about the test?
DB: Yes, I will.
PL: Any other tests we can review?
DB: Boris says the test dates from before our decision on inheritance.
TA: But inheritance is always the document tree. Anything else would be insane.
EE: There are sometimes anonymous boxes, which don't exist in the doc tree.
DB: Boris agrees the text about vertical borders in the test is backwards.
<dbaron> bz says he can fix the test in svn
PL: Can we look at the margin collapse tests?
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/bidi-breaking-002.htm
EE: We had resolved that line separator behavior
is undefined.
... One test fails, but it is a "may."
DB: A bunch of tests without passes. Not sure we can discuss them.
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/abspos-non-replaced-width-margin-000.htm
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/abspos-replaced-width-margin-000.htm
DB: [see URLs]. These are almost exhaustive tests
for all combinations. They are ref tests.
... We can probably split them and get more passes. But that probably still
not leads to 2 passes for all of them.
PL: I see reports that IE7 passes, but also that it fails...
<smfr> TabAtkins: not <link rel="alternate" href="http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/reftests/abspos-non-replaced-width-offset-margin.html"> ?
TA: Where is the reference? I don't see it linked.
<TabAtkins> smfr: Well, that file doesn't exist at all.
<plinss_> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/reftest.list
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/abspos-non-replaced-width-margin-000-ref.htm
DB: Add "-ref" to the URl to find the reference.
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/abspos-replaced-width-margin-000-ref.htm
PL: Working on improvement to harness. But see
the manifest [URL above].
... Some tests have multiple refs.
TA: That doesn't make sense.
PL: There are multiple ways to make the same result.
DB: Reftests test equivalence between features. There may be more than two equivalent features.
PL: Manifest has several lines for same test.
DB: But indeed not marked in metadata in the test. Could be reworked, but haven't done it.
PL: I'm planning to add links in the wrapper in
the harness.
... We'll also have negative refs in RC4, what should not
match.
SF: Useful to have sometihing in manifest that says there are mutliple refs.
EE: Like what?
SF: Some keyword I can look for.
EE: The manifest has a fixed format. Can put it in the metadata.
SF: That would probably be OK.
DB: The test we were talking about, I'd like to ask implementers to look at their bugs.
SF: It's a complex test. Splitting it out would indeed help.
DB: Relatively straightforward to edit test and reference. They are aligned line by line.
SF: I'll try to get Hyatt to look at this.
JJ: A propos of the IE7 result: IE7 fails.
DB: We might soon have two additional tests on the zero-passes list, because one fix I made caused two other tests to now fail.
EE: Update to spec in 2007 had not been incorporated in the tests.
PL: That will then give us one pass. Still need a second one...
TA: I'm willing to try...
EE: Hyatt wasn't sure about making the change. Somebody should talk to him.
<fantasai> He didn't want to change margin collapsing code without adequate test coverage
<fantasai> which we didn't have when I talked about it with him last
DB: Table background tests: it looks like Opera is very close.
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/table-backgrounds-bs-row-001.htm
DB: Some spacing in horizontal direction only.
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/table-backgrounds-bs-rowgroup-001.htm
DB: While webkit doesn't pass at all.
... Can Opera fix that?
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/table-backgrounds-bs-row-001-ref.htm
DB: I haven't looked at IE.
<dbaron> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20101027/html4/table-backgrounds-bs-rowgroup-001-ref.htm
<smfr> sorry, have to run to another mtg
HL: You think it is the same issue in both?
DB: That is what it looks like, yes.
HL: I will take a look at that.
PL: I will work on harness and reftest. It looks like the web spider attack on it is under control.