15:00:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #htmlt
15:00:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/23-htmlt-irc
15:01:10 <krisk> zakim, this is htmlt
15:01:10 <Zakim> krisk, I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be htmlt".
15:01:21 <krisk> zakim, this will be htmlt
15:01:22 <Zakim> ok, krisk; I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:02:32 <Zakim> HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has now started
15:02:39 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:03:08 <krisk> zakim, Microsoft is me
15:03:08 <Zakim> +krisk; got it
15:03:37 <krisk> I called into the conf call incase someone else dials in
15:03:57 <krisk> Though like most meeting I suspect this will be on IRC
15:05:06 <krisk> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Aug/0014.html
15:06:54 <krisk> Agenda Item #1 Bugs on approved tests
15:06:59 <krisk> Looks like we have two bugs
15:07:02 <krisk> First is http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13767
15:07:40 <Ms2ger> We should probably just remove these tests
15:08:47 <krisk> I agree as well
15:09:16 <krisk> jgraham/gsnedders do you object?
15:09:30 <jgraham> (looking)
15:09:50 <jgraham> Yep, delete them
15:10:41 <krisk> So we have consensus that these tests should be removed
15:11:02 <krisk> Next bug http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13875
15:12:11 <krisk> This seem like more of an ask for the w3c systems team?
15:12:39 <krisk> Can you explain more Ms2ger?
15:13:16 <krisk> Php seems to be universal in terms of support and documentation
15:13:42 <jgraham> Well it is not universal in that Mozilla don't use it for their testing
15:14:11 <jgraham> OTOH, there are clearly cases that won't be covered by less than a full blown language
15:14:43 <Ms2ger> Right; we will need a full blown language for some tests
15:15:07 <Ms2ger> I think it's still useful to limit the use of such a language to the cases where it's actually necessary
15:15:49 <krisk> I'm not opposed to have another way to create tests if we are limited by what we have in place today
15:16:04 <krisk> This is why MS helped get the w3c a Hg server
15:16:15 <jgraham> I don't object to having a simple method for common cases if it is trivial to implement via apache
15:16:36 <jgraham> The W3C server is useless for our internal testing
15:17:00 <krisk> Ms2ger can you add an example test that can't be done with php that is possible using the httpd.js ?
15:17:06 <jgraham> I don't know what it is like at Microsoft, but here using external servers for tests is forbidden for reliability reasons
15:17:17 <Ms2ger> This isn't about tests that can't be done using PHP
15:17:30 <Ms2ger> It's about tests that are easier to write without it
15:18:30 <Ms2ger> The text/plain test you commented on, for example, could be done with a one line ^headers^ files
15:18:38 <jgraham> Ms2ger: Can you write an implementation using only common apache modules?
15:18:56 <Ms2ger> I don't know, I hope so
15:19:19 <jgraham> I think we should revisit this once the implementability has been demonstrated
15:19:23 <Ms2ger> Agreed
15:20:19 <krisk> Microsoft doesn't use apache or php internally for testing
15:20:49 <jgraham> Intresting. So you are screwed either way :)
15:20:56 <krisk> Though translating from asp.net to php is trivial
15:21:18 <jgraham> But what Ms2ger suggests is likely to also be trivial in IIS (I guess)
15:21:31 <Ms2ger> Presumably as trivial as in Apache
15:21:44 <jgraham> Yeah, as trivial or not I suppose I mean
15:21:46 <jgraham> t
15:22:02 <krisk> so what is httpd.js an appache module?
15:22:20 <jgraham> A webserver written entirely in javascript aiui
15:22:32 <jgraham> Nothing to do with apache
15:23:00 <Ms2ger> What jgraham said :)
15:23:58 <krisk> One way to help is to submit this to Hg and send email to the list saying mozilla would like to give this to the w3c for possible use for testing
15:23:59 <jgraham> (the point of bringing up apache is that I assume it is relevant to the W3C systems team)
15:24:57 <krisk> I'm not against this just need more information
15:25:09 <Ms2ger> My idea was to re-implement the file format for apache
15:25:27 <jgraham> Right, lets see if that is possible first them come back to this bug
15:25:33 <jgraham> +'
15:25:42 <Ms2ger> (Though I have to admit I don't have a lot of experience with server side stuff)
15:26:02 <krisk> Ok ms2ger can you add more to the bug?
15:26:11 <Ms2ger> Will do
15:26:27 <krisk> Agenda item #2 PHP
15:27:32 <krisk> I just wanted to note that I pushed a php script and it worked just fine
15:27:39 <Ms2ger> Excellent
15:27:39 <krisk> http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/async/delay.php
15:27:51 <krisk> It's used for some async script tests
15:28:18 <krisk> async is pretty important for browser interop
15:28:49 <krisk> since if all browsers run script differently a page is never going to work the same across browsers
15:29:24 <Ms2ger> I'll see if I can get someone to review them
15:29:55 <krisk> I was going to send a private email to phl to let be aware of the php in case the systems folks wants to review
15:30:27 <krisk> though it's a very trivial php file
15:31:38 <Ms2ger> I thought they got alerted automatically, but might be good to confirm that with plh
15:32:32 <krisk> Agenda item #3 Test submissions
15:32:43 <krisk> I submitted some tests from microsoft
15:32:56 <krisk> some use async_test
15:32:59 <krisk> for example http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/async/async_003.htm
15:33:43 <krisk> Beyond if the test is a normative requirement I would be good to have feedback on the use of async_test
15:34:00 <krisk> I also didn't find a clean way to have a test timeout and fail
15:34:25 <krisk> I though the setup({timeout:100}) would do this but it didn't
15:35:02 <jgraham> If a test times out it times out
15:35:07 <Ms2ger> You're always running the timeout function before that kicks in, right?
15:35:32 <jgraham> There isn't a way to say "a timeout is equivalent to a fail"
15:36:11 <Ms2ger> I'd say timeouts are always failures
15:36:23 <Ms2ger> But that's a question for the runner, really
15:36:52 <jgraham> Yes
15:36:55 <jgraham> That's my view
15:37:29 <jgraham> It is OK to write a test where timeout implies fail because any sane runner will realise that a timeout isn't a pass result
15:37:56 <krisk> IMHO I added a timer to the async_tests that forces a fail before the setup({timeout}) occurs
15:38:22 <jgraham> That is OK too ofc
15:38:33 <jgraham> I don't have a strong opinion on the right style here
15:39:00 <krisk> Thanks that is why I am asking
15:39:17 <Ms2ger> I think it would be better to get rid of the setTimeout, though... I'll have a look if I can come up with something later
15:39:55 <jgraham> The only problem with splicit in-test timeouts is that they can cause problems if you run the tests on unexpectedly slow platforms
15:40:01 <jgraham> e.g. mobile devices
15:40:07 <jgraham> *explicit
15:40:23 <Ms2ger> Or our test servers during California working hours
15:40:48 <jgraham> Really?
15:41:20 <jgraham> That's one problem I don't recall seeing :)
15:42:10 <Ms2ger> Maybe your test servers weren't written in the nineties :)
15:43:38 <Ms2ger> krisk, anything else about Microsoft's submissions?
15:44:13 <krisk> I also submitted some sandbox tests, which have another problem...
15:44:58 <krisk> If you are familiar with the sandbox attribute one feature is that the sandbox content can't run script
15:45:45 <krisk> So for some of the sandbox tests I had to make the self describing tests
15:46:38 <jgraham> Sounds reasonable
15:46:48 <krisk> Though for ones that do run script I used the test harness
15:47:23 <krisk> The other part of sandbox attribute is pluggins
15:48:19 <krisk> We used pdf as a pluggin since it seems to be widely available - but it's not universal (mobile)
15:48:37 <jgraham> Uh, yeah dunno what to do with plugins
15:48:54 <jgraham> Isn't there a NPAPI test plugin?
15:49:00 <Ms2ger> I believe Mozilla has one
15:49:01 <jgraham> Could we use something like that?
15:49:12 <Ms2ger> I don't know anything about it, though
15:49:44 <Ms2ger> I can ask around if it would be useful cross-browser
15:51:03 <jgraham> I think we might have/use something similar but I know nothing about it. Or even if it exists really. I don't like plugins :)
15:51:30 <krisk> I'm open to using something else as long as it works on Windows
15:52:05 <Ms2ger> I'm open to anything as long as it works on Windows, Linux, and OSX
15:52:08 <Ms2ger> (Picky!)
15:53:28 <krisk> I just wanted to raise awareness on why a test uses pdf
15:54:01 <jgraham> Sure. But I think depending on an external plugin that we can't put in hg is a bug
15:54:20 <krisk> agree
15:54:40 <Ms2ger> I'll report to the list if I figure out something about Mozilla's plugin
15:55:32 <krisk> thanks
15:55:40 <krisk> shall we adjorn?
15:56:09 <Ms2ger> Infraware submitted testharness.js-using tests, btw
15:56:17 <Ms2ger> But the email didn't make it to the list
15:56:35 <Ms2ger> I emailed plh about that
15:56:36 <krisk> good to hear
15:56:41 <krisk> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:35 <krisk> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:58:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/23-htmlt-minutes.html krisk
16:01:51 <Zakim> -krisk
16:01:52 <Zakim> HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has ended
16:01:53 <Zakim> Attendees were krisk
16:18:31 <Ms2ger> Present+ Ms2ger jgraham 
17:52:20 <Zakim> Zakim has left #htmlt