15:02:19 RRSAgent has joined #htmlt
15:02:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-htmlt-irc
15:02:33 zakim, this is htmlt
15:02:35 krisk, I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be htmlt".
15:02:42 zakim, this will be htmlt
15:02:42 ok, krisk; I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
15:03:21 I'm dialing in right now....incase someone else dials into the conf call
15:03:41 If no one dials in then this can just be on IRC
15:04:23 HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has now started
15:04:30 +[Microsoft]
15:04:49 Zakim, Microsoft is krisk
15:04:49 +krisk; got it
15:06:04 Lets wait a few minutes - maybe David or Areyh will participate
15:06:43 Did timezones in the US change or something? I thought this was an hour later…
15:07:02 s/timezones/dst/
15:07:58 yes we are an hour a head (spring forward)
15:08:13 OK, it doesn' change 'till next weekend here
15:08:48 I'll have to take note for next year and send a reminder out
15:09:48 Mike5 has joined #htmlt
15:10:20 Hope you are OK Mike
15:10:39 plh has joined #htmlt
15:10:50 +Plh
15:11:51 Let's get going
15:11:56 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Mar/0028.html
15:12:53 Item #1 Check for any bugs on approved tests
15:12:57 Mike5_ has joined #htmlt
15:13:08 Link -> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_file_loc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_id=&bug_id_type=anyexact&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&component=testsuite&email1=&email2=&emailtype1=substring&emailtype2=substring&field0-0-0=noop&keywords=&keywords_type=allwords&long_desc=&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced&short_desc=&short_desc_type=allwords
15:13:17 I see no new bugs on the list
15:13:35 krisk: thanks, yeah, I am doing fine… I just got back to Tokyo today after being away for a week
15:13:40 Note that I updated the canvas security tests
15:14:22 and did a find . grep "test.w3.org" '{}' - print in the approved folder
15:14:56 which shows no results (as expected)
15:15:14 Zakim, code?
15:15:14 the conference code is 48658 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Mike5_
15:15:26 +??P9
15:15:32 Plh: we're in discussion with vodafone on their test suite
15:15:34 Zakim, ??P9 is me
15:15:34 +Mike5_; got it
15:15:42 ... they have a set of tests that they are interested in contributing
15:15:59 ... but it's based on their own framework, with the tests generated by the framework itself
15:16:26 hey krisk
15:16:43 ごめん for the echo/noise
15:16:50 I can hear krisk fine
15:17:38 That is good to hear about a new particpant
15:17:55 Agenda Item #2 Approve the Google A/V Tests
15:18:16 I updated 66 tests and added a third parameter
15:18:31 So we are good except for a few tests that have a few bugs
15:19:04 I'll move them into the approved directory
15:19:47 We did the redirect for test.w3.org now, so it might have broken some cross-domain pages
15:20:41 I did a find/grep and I see no more 'hits' so we are all set at this point with the server name change
15:22:26 Now some of the A/V test have a '_manual' which I'm not going to move since they are dups
15:22:34 Not sure why they were added
15:23:06 see http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Google/video/events/event_canplay.html and http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Google/video/events/event_canplay_manual.html
15:24:57 You see a comment from Simon Pieters about this as well at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Mar/0003.html
15:25:58 If someone wants them to be moved to the approved folder feel free speak up
15:26:22 Moving on to Agenda item #3 HTML5Lib parser tests
15:26:42 PlH: I did check with Rigo and he sais it was fine
15:26:43 Looking at the list we are all OK
15:26:55 s/sais/said/
15:27:04 jgraham did see that thread about this question?
15:27:07 I more or less have them ready to push
15:27:18 Plh: we can have tests under the MIT license in the HTML test suite
15:27:35 Once they are pushed into the w3c server I'll take a peek
15:27:35 I expect to do this in the next few days
15:27:52 we'll need to make sure not to use the license information
15:28:06 and whatever attribution there needs to be
15:28:12 not to use?
15:28:20 s/use/loose/
15:28:23 :)
15:28:31 Ah :)
15:28:34 Plh can you take a peek once they are pushed to make sure all is correct
15:29:00 I suggest making a separate directory?
15:29:18 It's your call plh
15:29:25 with a file indicating that all tests in the directory are under MIT license
15:29:59 seems best to have you setup these requirments (I'm not a lawyer)
15:30:35 it seems that we're not forced to have proper attribution, but it would be nice
15:30:52 zakim, mute Mike
15:30:52 Mike5_ should now be muted
15:32:38 any more comments about the HTML5lib parser tests?
15:33:59 plh: we'll need to figure out how to run the tests within the framework
15:34:07 ... I'm hoping the testing project will help there
15:34:42 Ok lets move on to the next agenda item
15:34:53 plh: The stuff I have runs the tests using javascript
15:35:01 in a browser using testharness.js
15:35:05 Agenda #4 Open discussion on test approval process (per feedback from Google/Mozilla)
15:40:58 for some suggestions, see http://www.w3.org/wiki/Testing/Requirements#Test-case_review … in particular, "allow anyone to easily give feedback on tests, not just named reviewers or people with W3C accounts" (which is a suggested requirement from jgraham)
15:44:26 Zakim, unmute me
15:44:26 Mike5_ should no longer be muted
15:44:30 I think we have been doing an OK job at keeping up with a back log that builds up
15:44:59 Now I understand that Areyh is not happy with the time to get his set of tests approved
15:45:04 Zakim, mute me
15:45:04 Mike5_ should now be muted
15:45:09 -Mike5_
15:45:45 +??P3
15:45:46 Kris: we still need to figure out a way to get Aryeh through...
15:45:52 Zakim, ??P3 is me
15:45:52 +Mike5; got it
15:45:59 Zakim, mute me
15:45:59 Mike5 should now be muted
15:46:37 The main issue issue is that no process is going to get a few thousand tests reviewed quickly
15:46:52 true
15:47:13 presumably that is why Mozilla are pushing for a default-accept model
15:47:30 on possibility here, let's separate them in chuncks and give those chuncks some deadline for review
15:47:42 Since, I assume, they believe that would concentrate effort on the areas that actually need it
15:47:56 i.e. the tests that implementors have problems with
15:47:58 I think when we do get a bunch of test we do need to get them reviewed and in this case reviewing and accepting a 'chunk' of tests seem appropriate
15:50:57 Some other issues exists are when we have hundereds of tests per page
15:51:19 All the tests on a page need to be correct before any can get approved
15:51:34 -or- the tests with bugs need to be commented out
15:51:43 so we have 9 files of tests to review. which ones should we start with?
15:52:29 I'd pick one that is not to contraversal
15:53:04 one pb is that those tests contains more than just the html5 spec
15:53:05 I'll take an action item to send to the list one 'set' to start to review and work on getting approval
15:53:13 ok
15:53:29 Yes that and the other feedback will need to get taken into account that comes up
15:53:44 So the other issue us the btoa/atob tests that he submitted
15:55:21 FWIW I don't think that dividing up the tests will take a significant burden off the reviewers
15:55:35 Almost all of the review there is ensuring his code is correct
15:55:56 The actual tests are just tables of element/attribute/type
15:56:04 do you have an other approach?
15:56:12 Not really
15:56:38 If the tests were split differently, one could review all the string reflection tests then the url ones, and so on
15:57:09 One approach would be to create a script that generates tests
15:57:41 Then you can review the html files that get generated over time
15:57:58 ?
15:58:57 For example a perl script that took parameters or had arrays of attributes built in could output individual html tests
15:59:26 Yes, one could do that
15:59:27 these individual tests could be reviewed/approved more quickly in smaller chuncks
16:00:00 The issue today is that all this data and logic is all tied together...
16:00:08 Although reviewing the javascript code would still be most of the effort
16:00:16 and the tests would likely run much slower
16:00:47 It really comes down to a trade off
16:01:09 if you want a test approved fast vs slow
16:01:50 surely a single test can be reviewed alot quicker than a big complex page that has lots of tests bundled together
16:01:58 -Mike5
16:02:22 Though I don't think we should go ask him to rewrite all his logic...
16:03:04 As I understand it he has a relatively small amount of logic that covers a large number of tests
16:03:15 Now with the btoa/atob tests we should wait till the bug is resolved...
16:03:28 seem ok to me
16:03:38 The problem is that relatively small amount of logic is still enough effort to review that volunteers have been sparse
16:04:02 And then there are lots of tedious tables to check
16:04:23 It is not hard to understand why people are not queueing to do this in their free time
16:04:48 I think it is fine to review the atob / btoa tests now
16:05:04 lets move forward with a 'chunk' and see how it goes
16:05:21 It's after the meeting time shall we adjourn?
16:05:46 for atob, Kris is waiting on the chairs to decide
16:05:52 and yes, it's fine to adjourn
16:05:52 feel free to review the tests...
16:06:11 Just because a test does end up in the approved folder doesn't mean they have no value
16:06:32 -Plh
16:06:50 e.g non-normative tests
16:06:55 -krisk
16:06:56 HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has ended
16:06:58 Attendees were krisk, Plh, Mike5_, Mike5
16:07:15 rrsagent, generate minutes
16:07:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-htmlt-minutes.html krisk
16:12:39 RRSAgent, make logs public
17:03:12 Ms2ger has joined #HTMLT
17:54:46 Zakim has left #htmlt