IRC log of htmlt on 2011-04-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #htmlt
15:02:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:02:45 [krisk]
zakim, this is htmlt
15:02:45 [Zakim]
sorry, krisk, I do not see a conference named 'htmlt' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:02:50 [krisk]
zakim, this is #htmlt
15:02:50 [Zakim]
sorry, krisk, I do not see a conference named '#htmlt' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:03:45 [krisk]
still no conf call...
15:04:05 [krisk]
I suspect that this will not be a problem given who is on IRC
15:04:58 [krisk]
15:05:28 [krisk]
Agenda Item #1 Check for new bugs
15:05:41 [krisk]
tiny url link
15:05:58 [krisk]
We have 3 bugs total..
15:06:29 [krisk]
jgraham are you going to do anything with bug #11321?
15:06:38 [krisk]
it looks like it could be closed
15:06:56 [plh]
plh has joined #htmlt
15:07:27 [krisk]
No conf call is setup...
15:09:23 [jgraham]
Ooh conf
15:09:55 [krisk]
plh if you dial/setup the call I can dial in as well...
15:10:03 [krisk]
though IRC works just fine
15:11:10 [jgraham]
I don't think the essensial style of testharness.js is likely to change at this point
15:11:25 [jgraham]
But I will change the component
15:11:31 [krisk]
so then you can resolve it as won't fix
15:13:33 [plh]
I'm ok with irc
15:13:36 [jgraham]
I have moved it to the testharness.js component. I will keep it open for now
15:14:13 [plh]
are you to change the interface between the harness and the framework?
15:14:17 [plh]
15:14:41 [jgraham]
The callback API?
15:14:45 [plh]
15:15:31 [jgraham]
I imagine that has to be at least somewhat stable now. I have considered using something like postMessage but maybe that would have to be a better supplementary API
15:16:12 [jgraham]
Are there reasons to change it?
15:16:30 [jgraham]
(I am assuming you are asking "is it stable" but maybe not)
15:16:54 [plh]
yes, I'm asking how stable it is
15:17:03 [plh]
I don't know any reason to change it
15:17:07 [krisk]
I would not change it....
15:17:15 [jgraham]
Well it is a real pain for me if I change it since I have things that depoend on it :)
15:17:15 [krisk]
it's an ask that is not strictly needed
15:17:40 [jgraham]
So at the very least I don't expect the current API to disappear
15:17:54 [plh]
15:18:26 [krisk]
If someone really wants this then they can add to the harness and not break the current API
15:19:10 [krisk]
let's move on to the second agenda item
15:19:33 [Mike5]
Mike5 has joined #htmlt
15:19:46 [krisk]
It more of an FYI rather than an agenda item
15:19:55 [Mike5]
Zakim, call Mike-goog
15:19:55 [Zakim]
sorry, Mike5, I don't know what conference this is
15:19:59 [Mike5]
15:20:05 [krisk]
Note the WebApps thread about CFC for test approval (
15:20:06 [plh]
we're on irc only Mike
15:20:09 [Mike5]
15:20:29 [plh]
I just went through the thread and didn't anything dramatic there
15:21:05 [plh]
there is still the approved/submitted debate which, imho, depend on the group and the stage of the spec
15:21:12 [krisk]
Feedback ends soon...april 20th
15:21:35 [krisk]
We (Microsoft) will be sending some feedback
15:21:45 [plh]
15:21:54 [krisk]
Is Opera OK with this proposal?
15:22:01 [jgraham]
I think Aryeh has a point about the organisation of the HTML repo not being optimal
15:22:20 [jgraham]
Sure I think we are happy with the webapps proposal
15:22:35 [krisk]
I like the CFC for test approval
15:23:18 [krisk]
Ensures that everyone has a voice on approved tests
15:24:21 [plh]
I'm ok switching to CFC, but asking the html wg to do CFC on test suite might be premature imho
15:24:59 [plh]
I was thinking we could drive the group using CFCs for the test suite once the spec is in CR
15:25:50 [jgraham]
FWIW what I think we really need is a code review system that would allow us to track which tests have actually been looked at
15:25:53 [plh]
if we want to do CFC for the test suite before CR, I would suggest talking to the chairs first. we don't want to overburden the group too much between the call for proposals, reviews, etc.
15:26:22 [krisk]
I'm not suggesting that we switch to this for the HTMLWG
15:26:45 [jgraham]
]I am not yet really worried about how the end game pans out for the HTML testsuite because we are so far from that point
15:27:21 [jgraham]
I think it is much more profitable to worry about how to get more tests
15:27:28 [jgraham]
+high quality
15:27:48 [krisk]
Though having multiple people agree that a test is 'approved' is better than having just one person 'approving'
15:28:33 [krisk]
If you have not noticed ms2ger has added a number of more tests into Hg
15:28:35 [krisk]
15:28:47 [plh]
so, the code review system would be for each test?
15:28:55 [jgraham]
Right, being able to track who reviewed each commit (or even each line in a commit) would be perfect
15:29:18 [jgraham]
I have been looking for mercurial code review systems that do this, but have drawn a blank so far, sadly
15:29:46 [jgraham]
So I guess we will have to improvise something
15:30:40 [plh]
do we have a page to track the submitted tests for html somewhere?
15:31:06 [krisk]
I just run a script and watch submissions
15:31:38 [krisk]
Sounds like a good task for the cross testing working group
15:31:59 [krisk]
Since this is not WG specific and I have heard this ask from other WG (for example CSS)
15:32:09 [plh]
we can look into that sure. it's more than just watching submissions however
15:32:16 [plh]
it's also watching the review process
15:32:32 [krisk]
It's a simple scale problem
15:33:20 [plh]
it would be helpful to have a list of requirements/needs from this group however
15:33:36 [plh]
if we're going to develop something, better make sure it's something you guys want
15:33:39 [krisk]
15:34:08 [plh]
it goes under
15:34:41 [plh]
we haven't developed the requirements a lot for this so far
15:35:36 [jgraham]
It is not trivial to work out what the requirments are
15:36:04 [jgraham]
My ntural instinct is to favour something more like traditional code review
15:36:08 [jgraham]
15:36:24 [jgraham]
Where people review parts of specific commits
15:36:57 [jgraham]
Rather than trying to encode some idea of a test in the system
15:37:31 [plh]
we actually have a code review system in place between our current mercurial, to do reviews of php files
15:37:41 [plh]
may be it can be extended...
15:37:46 [krisk]
how does that work
15:37:56 [jgraham]
Interesting. Are you using something widely avaliable or something homegrown?
15:38:10 [plh]
I think it's homegrown
15:38:28 [plh]
it sends emails to a few team folks if someone commit a pho file
15:38:30 [plh]
15:38:53 [plh]
and the php file only gets replicated to is one of us approves it
15:39:19 [krisk]
email is not good for tracking
15:39:23 [plh]
just a url to click on, pretty easy
15:39:48 [plh]
well, we could have a page maybe instead of emails
15:40:08 [jgraham]
Yeah I worry that doing this "properly" is quite a lot of effort
15:40:36 [plh]
I'm open to alternatives :)
15:41:13 [jgraham]
Me too :)
15:41:42 [plh]
btw, where is your code to run the parser within testharness? did you publish it somewhere?
15:41:50 [plh]
s/parser/parser tests/
15:42:02 [jgraham]
It's the the repo under submissions/Opera/
15:42:18 [plh]
15:42:32 [jgraham]
It has some issues still
15:42:53 [krisk]
Plh you can subscribe to the RSS feed for the HTML Hg repository
15:42:55 [Mike5_]
Mike5_ has joined #htmlt
15:43:15 [plh]
Kris, I am already :(
15:43:54 [krisk]
Let's move on to the last agenda item
15:45:10 [krisk]
I have not seen any feedback for the metadata chunk of the reflection tests
15:45:36 [krisk]
We said last time we would pick a date if we didn't get any feedback
15:45:57 [krisk]
so how about we pick May 17th as the date?
15:46:08 [plh]
why so far in the future?
15:46:41 [krisk]
So that people have time to actually look at the test and give feedback
15:47:19 [krisk]
If not one responds back it seems fair given the time
15:47:26 [jgraham]
I'm fine with that. I think reviewing one set of the tests basically means reviewing all of them due to the way they are structured
15:47:42 [plh]
I'm ok with May 17th
15:48:33 [krisk]
It also means that Aryeh needs to stop changing the tests
15:49:02 [jgraham]
(this is why working with *commits* is better than tests)
15:49:53 [krisk]
I flexible either way as long as the person is 'done' with a commit or test
15:50:06 [krisk]
and doesn't later need to do some type of 'cleanup
15:50:17 [jgraham]
(well really I suppose one would have to ask for review of a series of commits)
15:50:42 [jgraham]
(and then any later changes would be marked unreviewed and reviewed seperately)
15:51:57 [krisk]
Phl as a side note - the notes that get generated from the RRSAgent always have bad permissions
15:52:13 [krisk]
is their a trick to getting the permissions set?
15:52:14 [gsnedders]
RRSAgent, make minutes public
15:52:14 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', gsnedders. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:52:43 [gsnedders]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:52:52 [krisk]
got it
15:53:36 [krisk]
Shall we adjourn?
15:54:03 [plh]
fine by me
15:54:10 [jgraham]
15:54:33 [krisk]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:54:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate krisk
16:36:06 [Mike5]
Mike5 has joined #htmlt
17:35:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #htmlt
17:59:06 [plh]
plh has left #htmlt