IRC log of css on 2011-08-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:44:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #css
15:44:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/31-css-irc
15:44:16 [glazou]
Zakim, this will be Style
15:44:16 [Zakim]
ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
15:44:21 [glazou]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:50:32 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_ has joined #css
15:51:05 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
15:56:51 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:56:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.354.aaaa
15:57:04 [plinss]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:57:04 [Zakim]
+plinss; got it
15:57:29 [Zakim]
+??P9
15:57:43 [Florianr]
Zakim, I am ??P9
15:57:43 [Zakim]
+Florianr; got it
15:57:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.552.aabb
15:58:13 [nimbupani]
Zakim aabb is me
15:58:21 [nimbupani]
zakim, aabb is me
15:58:21 [Zakim]
+nimbupani; got it
15:58:25 [nimbupani]
okay!
15:58:45 [Zakim]
+??P14
15:59:04 [glazou]
Zakim, code?
15:59:04 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), glazou
15:59:17 [Zakim]
+??P16
15:59:23 [glazou]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
15:59:23 [Zakim]
+glazou; got it
15:59:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.619.846.aacc
15:59:52 [hober]
Zakim, aacc is me
15:59:52 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
16:00:26 [Zakim]
+ +34.92.38.aadd
16:00:43 [arronei_]
zakim, microsoft is me
16:00:43 [Zakim]
sorry, arronei_, I do not recognize a party named 'microsoft'
16:00:44 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:00:46 [arronei_]
zakim, microsoft is me
16:00:47 [Zakim]
+arronei_; got it
16:00:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.550.aaee
16:00:59 [stearns]
zakim, aaee is me
16:00:59 [Zakim]
+stearns; got it
16:01:09 [nimbu]
haha :)
16:01:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.618.aaff
16:01:31 [nimbu]
aww
16:01:59 [bradk]
bradk has joined #css
16:02:22 [dbaron]
Zakim seems to have forgotten all the phone number to name mappings...
16:02:58 [smfr]
smfr has joined #css
16:03:30 [Bert]
There was a network problem last weekend, some broken i/f card, I believe, and some services had to be restarted. I guess Zakim lost its memory in the process.
16:03:32 [arno]
arno has joined #css
16:03:37 [Zakim]
+SteveZ
16:03:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.832.aagg
16:03:48 [kimberlyblessing]
kimberlyblessing has joined #css
16:03:54 [arno]
Zakim, aagg is arno
16:03:54 [Zakim]
+arno; got it
16:03:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.636.aahh
16:03:58 [oyvind]
oyvind has joined #css
16:03:58 [plinss]
http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3
16:04:03 [smfr]
Zakim, aahh is me
16:04:03 [Zakim]
+smfr; got it
16:04:10 [glazou]
Bert: in other words, Zakim suffered an trauma-induced amnesia ?-)
16:04:17 [Bert]
:-)
16:04:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.281.305.aaii
16:04:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.215.286.aajj
16:04:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.766.aakk
16:04:31 [TabAtkins_]
Zakim, aaii is me
16:04:32 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
16:04:32 [Zakim]
+TabAtkins_; got it
16:04:43 [kimberlyblessing]
Zakim, aajj is me
16:04:44 [Zakim]
+kimberlyblessing; got it
16:04:49 [arno]
db updated. thanks plinss
16:04:50 [bradk]
Zakim, aakk is me
16:04:51 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
16:05:30 [TabAtkins_]
ScribeNick: TabAtkins_
16:06:05 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Had a request to publish an update to css3 values.
16:06:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.920.aall
16:06:13 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: elika sent an email about extra stuff
16:06:18 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Yes, I have that.
16:06:22 [fantasai]
Zakim, aall is me
16:06:22 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:06:43 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: I support publishing the new Values WD
16:07:02 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Any opposition?
16:07:09 [TabAtkins_]
Bert, glazou: in favor
16:07:17 [TabAtkins_]
RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of css3-values
16:07:37 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: We discussed last week some specs we may want to update for epub, and we started talking about fonts. do we have the people we need?
16:07:44 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Unless John Daggett is on, no.
16:07:59 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: I think Fonts is less critical, because there's no syntactic changes.
16:08:06 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: And they're tracking the latest in terms of semantics.
16:08:22 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: As soon as John publishes the next draft, it'll be the one that defines the matching algo.
16:08:39 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: I think that's all we need to discuss for epub. Writing Modes and Text will be published next week.
16:08:52 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Bert's not sure we have a formal resolution to publish Selectors 4.
16:09:08 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: The limit was to publish by the end of September. I think we should just publish now.
16:09:22 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: I think Selectors is a good spec to break the level 3/4 barrier with.
16:09:37 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: There was some concern about publishing before the Rec came out, but I"m not too concerned about that.
16:09:57 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: A while back we got an email from Ian Jacobs about that, and he was concerned about releasing Selectors 4 before 3 was Rec.
16:10:20 [TabAtkins_]
szilles: It's easier to describe what's going on if Selectors 3 is a Rec before we release Selectors 4.
16:10:36 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: One, HTML5 needs something to refer to, and we don't want them referring to our EDs.
16:11:14 [TabAtkins_]
szilles: HTML5 is at least 2 years away from Rec, so it's not a big deal.
16:11:22 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: More like 10 years, to be honest.
16:11:34 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: They said September 7th is the earliest they can publish.
16:12:01 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: We're also trying to work on things in parallel, so we'll get to the point where we're working on a level 4 module while the level 3 module is in CR. So what's the problem?
16:12:16 [TabAtkins_]
szilles: You're missing the publicity opportunity.
16:12:19 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: We had one with 2.1
16:12:38 [TabAtkins_]
szilles: And we have another one here. There's no real urgency.
16:13:11 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: So the first time we publish a level 4 WD while a level 3 spec isn't Rec will be CR.
16:13:11 [Zakim]
+dsinger
16:13:31 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: It's a bad public signal to release level 4 before level 3 when Selectors 3 has been worked on for so so long.
16:13:38 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #css
16:13:47 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: It's acceptable to do so when a spec has only been worked on for 2 years or something, but not 12 years like Selectors.
16:13:48 [dsinger_]
zakim, mute dsinger
16:13:48 [Zakim]
dsinger should now be muted
16:13:57 [TabAtkins_]
szilles: I agree.
16:14:26 [glazou]
np dsinger_
16:14:34 [TabAtkins_]
szilles: If there was an urgent problem, I'd agree with fantasai, but HTML5 isn't an urgent problem here.
16:15:16 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Do we want to wait to publish, or publish them simultaneously?
16:15:20 [TabAtkins_]
multiple: That's fine:
16:15:29 [TabAtkins_]
RESOLVED: Publish WD of Selectors 4 with the Rec of Selectors 3.
16:15:55 [Zakim]
-dsinger
16:16:01 [TabAtkins_]
arronei_: Tab, are you sending the request to publish Images?
16:16:14 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: Yes, I've probably missed the slot for this week, but I'll publish next week.
16:16:15 [Zakim]
+dsinger
16:16:20 [TabAtkins_]
Topic: Spec conformance markup
16:16:24 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #css
16:16:24 [Zakim]
-fantasai
16:16:29 [dsinger_]
zakim, mute dsinger
16:16:29 [Zakim]
dsinger should now be muted
16:16:39 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: We're developing tools to map assertions to tests so we have a visible record of our coverage.
16:16:39 [plinss]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2011Aug/0006.html
16:16:53 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Alan sent out some requests for guidance on how to do this for the Regions spec.
16:16:54 [Zakim]
+??P56
16:17:00 [fantasai]
Zakim, ??P56 is me
16:17:00 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:18:11 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: I can understand wanting to have more granular anchors, but later in the thread you were saying that you just have to point out the bits that are normative. But that's not helpful, because most of the spec is normative excepts the notes and examples.
16:18:21 [glazou]
Ms2ger: publishing specs gives a signal to the public about our WG's work
16:18:32 [glazou]
Ms2ger: and the HTML WG is not alone in the W3C
16:18:40 [Ms2ger]
So your signal is that you're doing nothing at all?
16:18:42 [TabAtkins_]
???: I don't think that's quite accurate. The Regions spec, for example, has a large section explaining the mechanics, and that's not normative.
16:19:06 [plinss]
s/???/stearns/
16:19:14 [glazou]
Ms2ger: the signal is that we close the "3" chapter for Selectors before
16:19:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.275.aamm
16:19:37 [Zakim]
-bradk
16:19:53 [bradk]
Zakim, aamm is me
16:19:53 [Zakim]
+bradk; got it
16:19:58 [glazou]
Ms2ger: and between you and me, that never prevented the HTML WG from including in HTML stuff that's under CSS WG's scope, refer to non-existing standards, etc.
16:20:02 [TabAtkins_]
stearns: If you put the markup on just the normative sections, that's a first step toward testable assertions. That gives you a rough idea of code coverage.
16:20:24 [TabAtkins_]
stearns: Regions wants to go into finer detail, so we can check to make sure that each sentence with a testable assertion has a corresponding test.
16:20:42 [howcome]
howcome has joined #css
16:21:00 [Zakim]
+ +47.21.65.aann
16:21:04 [Ms2ger]
glazou, just saying that you can't demand that nobody references EDs if you aren't willing to publish the new features people need on TR/
16:21:17 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: I understand what you're saying wrt marking things up at a sentence level, but I don't understand the section level. Only a few sections are non-normative, and they can be indicated easily.
16:21:28 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Also, we already have anchors for the sections.
16:21:34 [glazou]
Ms2ger: who said we're not willing to release? We just have some control on when we release, that's all
16:21:43 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: I think he's talking about more just "anything larger than a sentence", like a paragraph or something.
16:21:53 [glazou]
Ms2ger: take that to private chat please
16:22:25 [TabAtkins_]
stearns: So you can use this markup to keep track of test coverage for whatever level of granularity you want to track.
16:23:00 [TabAtkins_]
arronei_: For CSS 2.1, we have thousands of tests, and they're only linked to the section level. The sections are fairly small.
16:23:08 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: I think 2.1 could have used more granularity.
16:23:15 [fantasai]
in its sections
16:23:27 [TabAtkins_]
arronei_: Sure, but our modern specs have even smaller sections, so I'm not sure there's a strong problem.
16:23:53 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: I'm not concerned about where the assertions are marked up. My concern is about getting sufficient information about testing coverage.
16:24:29 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Sure. I think per-sentence markup is the best for that, and I also don't want to do per-sentence markup. I think per-paragraph would be fine, but per-section is too large and useless.
16:25:13 [howcome]
Zakim, +47.21.65.aann is howcome
16:25:13 [Zakim]
+howcome; got it
16:25:35 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: I'm just concerned about how to mark up the testable assertions.
16:26:08 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: If you except notes and examples, which are already marked up, most of the test is normative. Thus you can more easily take the parts that *aren't* normative and mark them up.
16:26:18 [fantasai]
s/most of the test/most of the text/
16:26:51 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: I think another point is that it's not necessarily the author's responsibility. We already have the notion of the test champion, and they could take the spec after it's ready to be published and mark up the assertions.
16:27:05 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: I'm not hearing any strong objections. Does anybody think this is a stupid idea?
16:27:14 [TabAtkins_]
arronei_: I say we try this on a spec and see how it goes.
16:27:22 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: We're already doing that for Regions.
16:27:40 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Is the test champion doing this during CR, or before?
16:28:10 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: When you develop the test suite.
16:28:21 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: If it's during WD then I have to deal with the markup.
16:28:43 [TabAtkins_]
TabAtkins_: Developing the testsuite is up to you. If you wait until CR, then you only have to deal with it for CR edits.
16:28:48 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Which are minor.
16:29:04 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: I think if you're developing a test suite before stable/CR, you're doing something wrong.
16:29:09 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #css
16:29:15 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: So I'm not hearing objections. Alan, go ahead and start working.
16:29:21 [TabAtkins_]
Topic: CSS 2.1 and issue tracking
16:29:29 [Zakim]
+[Apple]
16:29:41 [Zakim]
-dsinger
16:29:48 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:29:48 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:29:56 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Who's tracking issues for 2.1? Nobody right now, but who's responsible going forward for tracking issues for 2.1?
16:30:15 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: And driving decisions and getting errata published, etc. Several things to do.
16:30:18 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Any volunteers?
16:30:27 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: Since I'm an editor, I guess I have some responsibility there.
16:30:40 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: We do have the bugzilla component set up for it.
16:30:49 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: What is the bugzilla component used for?
16:31:16 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Just as a replacement for the wiki. We still discuss issues on the mailing list, but now we can have the issue more clearly and with a CLOSED or RESOLVED FIXED status.
16:31:25 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: And that couldn't be done with Tracker?
16:31:33 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: No, because Tracker sucks at dealing with statuses.
16:31:39 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: But it's good with IRC.
16:31:52 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Yes, but most 2.1 issues come in through the mailing list, and a lot of them are editorial.
16:32:20 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: So as issues come in from the mailing list, we put them into bugzilla and track them there, but we keep the discussions on the mailing list.
16:32:39 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: So we can have Bert assigned as the assignee, and me as the QA, so once you mark something as fixed I can check the edit.
16:32:58 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Bugzilla also makes it easier to assign issues to different people, so you don't have to be the assignee for everything.
16:33:28 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: What's the status of Anton's application?
16:33:48 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: I checked - it's currently in PLH's hands. I forwarded the application about 3 weeks ago, but he's been traveling or on holiday.
16:33:53 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: I'll ask him when he's back.
16:34:16 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: And what about Molly's transition back to IE status?
16:34:38 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: It's happening. There's a required delay for people to object, and it's already started, so it should be done in the next few days.
16:34:53 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: And I think fantasai is already an official Moz member.
16:35:15 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: The next issue was about the blog.
16:35:29 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: In progress. The systeam is deciding who is responsible for what and when.
16:35:40 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: Our turn should be next week or so.
16:35:51 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: So for the blogging system, can you make sure all the editors have an account?
16:36:00 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: I'll make sure that gets done.
16:36:21 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: We also need to make sure everyone who has an account knows about it, and knows the password, so they can write to the blog.
16:36:29 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Last issue is announcements for publications.
16:36:48 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: I know that you've often done the announcements to www-style, but I think we should make it the responsibility of the editor to write something.
16:36:55 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: I'm in favor of that.
16:37:10 [TabAtkins_]
glazou: It should be the responsibility of the editor to publish to the blog, send to www-style, etc.
16:37:18 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Can we resolve on that?
16:37:41 [TabAtkins_]
RESOLVED: The editor of a spec is responsible for posting to the blog, www-style, etc. when something is published.
16:37:50 [TabAtkins_]
bradk: Is there a process document somewhere explaining all the steps?
16:38:13 [TabAtkins_]
ACTION fantasai to write up a process document on the wiki for how you actually publish something.
16:38:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-361 - Write up a process document on the wiki for how you actually publish something. [on Elika Etemad - due 2011-09-07].
16:38:40 [TabAtkins_]
fantasai: Do we have an errata document set up for 2.1?
16:38:43 [TabAtkins_]
Bert: We should have...
16:39:03 [Bert]
http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-20110607-errata.html
16:39:08 [Bert]
currently empty :-)
16:39:37 [plinss]
http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/
16:39:40 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: The test suite management system is starting to come online for real. I'd appreciate feedback.
16:40:07 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: So just try it out and let me know what you think.
16:40:22 [TabAtkins_]
arronei_: Changes we make right now will be just testing, right? It won't reflect into real stuff?
16:40:27 [howcome]
howcome has left #css
16:40:44 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Yes, I'll regen the database in a few minutes, and will do it again just before launch. Do what you want, it's all scratch space right now.
16:40:58 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: If you have a wiki account, you have an account here with the same login credentials.
16:41:08 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: There's a lot of UI work left to do, but it's functional.
16:41:31 [howcome]
howcome has joined #css
16:41:33 [TabAtkins_]
plinss: Short meeting today!
16:41:35 [Zakim]
-??P14
16:41:37 [Zakim]
-glazou
16:41:38 [Zakim]
-dbaron
16:41:39 [Zakim]
-kimberlyblessing
16:41:39 [Zakim]
-arno
16:41:39 [Zakim]
-howcome
16:41:41 [Zakim]
-hober
16:41:45 [Zakim]
-smfr
16:41:46 [Zakim]
-SteveZ
16:41:48 [Zakim]
-[Apple]
16:41:51 [Zakim]
-nimbupani
16:41:53 [Zakim]
-fantasai
16:41:54 [Zakim]
-Florianr
16:41:56 [Zakim]
-plinss
16:41:57 [fantasai]
Bert: css3-values should be ready for publication, so you can hit go on that as soon as I get out the minutes :)
16:41:58 [Zakim]
-Bert
16:42:01 [Zakim]
-stearns
16:42:03 [Zakim]
-TabAtkins_
16:42:04 [Zakim]
-bradk
16:42:07 [Zakim]
-arronei_
16:42:09 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
16:42:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.858.354.aaaa, plinss, Florianr, +1.206.552.aabb, nimbupani, glazou, +1.619.846.aacc, hober, +34.92.38.aadd, arronei_, +1.206.550.aaee, stearns, Bert,
16:42:14 [Zakim]
... +1.650.618.aaff, dbaron, SteveZ, +1.415.832.aagg, arno, +1.408.636.aahh, smfr, +1.281.305.aaii, +1.215.286.aajj, +1.650.766.aakk, TabAtkins_, kimberlyblessing, bradk,
16:42:16 [Zakim]
... +1.415.920.aall, fantasai, dsinger, +1.650.275.aamm, howcome
16:44:58 [howcome]
howcome has left #css
16:56:19 [Florianr]
Florianr has left #css
17:01:10 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
17:07:17 [anne]
anne has joined #css
17:14:46 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
17:37:32 [howcome]
howcome has joined #css
17:46:50 [karl]
karl has joined #CSS
17:51:05 [fantasai]
plinss: So, are we marking up normative sections or marking up non-normative sections?
17:51:17 [fantasai]
plinss: Because if it's the former, I'm just going to put a <div> around the whole spec.
17:51:23 [fantasai]
plinss: which is silly
17:51:32 [fantasai]
plinss: but easy
17:55:01 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
18:31:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #css
18:32:16 [stearns]
stearns has joined #css
19:00:00 [plinss]
fantasai: we're marking up normative sections to the smallest level of granularity that makes sense given the stability of the spec
19:03:09 [fantasai]
plinss: I'm happy to put anchors at a more granularity that "most of the spec" but adding a class attribute is a bit much imho
19:17:46 [stearns]
fantasai: how would you distinguish between a testable anchor and a non-testable anchor? That's the intent of the class attribute
20:17:29 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #css
20:55:38 [arronei]
arronei has joined #css
21:08:04 [fantasai]
stearns: assume testable unless told otherwise?
21:08:43 [fantasai]
anchors for/in examples, notes, and informative sections are not testable
21:08:50 [fantasai]
pretty much anything else will be testable
21:09:23 [fantasai]
if you need something extra, then have a class for non-testable
21:09:44 [fantasai]
that'll reduce the amount of markup work involved by a lot
21:21:44 [fantasai]
Bert: css3-values should be ready to go, here are the minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0674.html
21:24:03 [Bert]
Thanks! I'll hit the go button, as you said :-) tomorrow morning, because I prepared the message to the webmaster already, but it is on my computer at work.
21:38:51 [fantasai]
ooh, I need to fix the title
21:38:54 [fantasai]
just a sec :p
21:44:33 [fantasai]
Bert: ok, fixed
21:52:53 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins has joined #css
22:02:48 [stearns]
fantasai: looking at current id usage, I'm assuming not-testable would include headings and dfn elements as well. Do you agree?
22:03:14 [fantasai]
The anchors on headings represent the entire section
22:03:16 [fantasai]
not the heading only
22:03:32 [fantasai]
So they should usually be considered testable
22:03:55 [fantasai]
unless it's an informative section
22:04:13 [fantasai]
stearns: as for <dfn> elements, it depends. Quite a few <dfn>s are testable
22:04:39 [fantasai]
stearns: The value of each property is in a <dfn>
22:04:59 [fantasai]
stearns: And that anchor represents the contents of the <dt> and the <dd> it's associated with
22:05:17 [fantasai]
stearns: Those are pretty much always testable, no?
22:05:55 [stearns]
So if a heading represents a testable section, and that section contains dfn elements with ids as well, how would you like to count up test coverage?
22:07:37 [fantasai]
assign each test to its anchor
22:07:39 [fantasai]
?
22:07:43 [fantasai]
as determined by the test writer?
22:08:48 [stearns]
Say I have a section with a heading anchor that lists some property values, each with its own anchor
22:09:08 [stearns]
tests are written for each value, but outside of that there's nothing to test for the heading anchor
22:09:19 [fantasai]
highly unlikely
22:09:31 [fantasai]
if nothing else, you need to also test whether inheritance happens correctly
22:09:47 [fantasai]
and whether the initial value is correct
22:09:56 [fantasai]
and whether the property applies to all the things it's supposed to apply to
22:10:10 [stearns]
ok, that sounds good
22:10:28 [fantasai]
And pretty much every property also has some other things to test
22:10:31 [fantasai]
in the description
22:10:57 [fantasai]
An example of a section that has nothing to test is http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#edge-effects
22:11:03 [fantasai]
There's just a paragraph introducing the subsections
22:11:08 [fantasai]
which contain stuff to test
22:11:27 [fantasai]
The property definition table will contain the applies to, initial, inhertied, computed value lines
22:11:34 [fantasai]
that has an anchor, which can also be used
22:11:46 [fantasai]
for finer granularity
22:11:49 [stearns]
there's also anchors for sections 1 and 1.1 that probably don't have tests
22:12:17 [fantasai]
right
22:12:31 [fantasai]
1.3 would have tests, though
22:12:36 [fantasai]
even though it's just a bunch of <dfn>s :)
22:12:46 [stearns]
and 1.2 (inherit keyword)
22:12:49 [fantasai]
A test would probably be for something that uses one of the definitions
22:12:56 [fantasai]
and a secondary or tertiary link would go to 1.3
22:13:18 [fantasai]
you could have a test, for example, that checks that symbols are not treated as letters
22:13:23 [fantasai]
for the purpose of <whatever>
22:13:52 [stearns]
so for edge effects, sections 1 and 1.1 there would be a new "non-normative" class attribute?
22:14:05 [stearns]
or non-testable?
22:14:14 [fantasai]
well.. it's a littel confusing
22:14:24 [fantasai]
since Edge Effects doesn't have any tests for its own text
22:14:28 [fantasai]
but it contains subsections that would
22:14:45 [fantasai]
you'd have to be clear that the subsections aren't affected
22:15:26 [stearns]
perhaps it should point to the id -> class="non-testable-id"
22:15:48 [fantasai]
yeah maybe
22:15:59 [fantasai]
One of the key things I learned when I did the assertions list for css3-page
22:16:09 [fantasai]
was that the spec does not contain test assertions :)
22:16:22 [fantasai]
it only contains prose that has to be interpreted into test assertions
22:16:31 [fantasai]
and often those test assertions are combinations of multiple statements in the spec
22:17:06 [stearns]
so a test might point to multiple ids in the spec
22:17:12 [fantasai]
yes
22:17:18 [fantasai]
very frequently, in fact
22:17:42 [fantasai]
and the more granular your IDs, the more this will happen
22:17:52 [stearns]
yeah, I was assuming I'd be doing that
22:19:14 [fantasai]
evaluating test coverage is also more qualitative than quantitative
22:19:20 [fantasai]
yes, you want at least one test per testable statement
22:19:29 [fantasai]
but very often you need much more than one test :)
22:19:37 [fantasai]
and how much is determined by what that statement is
22:19:42 [fantasai]
and how it interacts with other statements
22:19:46 [stearns]
plinss: would the tool work you're considering work with this "assume ids are testable with exceptions" scheme?
22:20:37 [fantasai]
stearns: maybe we could have a <div> that, like class="example" and class="note", means its contents aren't testable
22:20:51 [fantasai]
stearns: then we could wrap e.g. Edge Effects and its paragraph intro in the <div>
22:21:16 [fantasai]
it'd be clear then that it only applies to that paragraph, and not the subsections after it
22:21:29 [fantasai]
<div class="informative">
22:21:29 [stearns]
not sure I agree that examples aren't testable. In all other specs I've worked on the examples are *always* tests (to make sure they work)
22:22:29 [plinss]
stearns: the tool could handle pretty much anything, the simpler the better for me, obviously
22:22:57 [fantasai]
that's fair, but those tests are unlikely to be automatable...
22:23:30 [plinss]
so far both shepherd and the harness only look at section headings (and in fact we restrict test to spec links to section headings)
22:25:55 [stearns]
So excluding example, note and perhaps "informative" anchors works as long as there is no intervening element with some other class attribute
22:26:45 [fantasai]
You'd just cut out the entire contents of the .example, .note, and .informative
22:26:46 [stearns]
(and if that's the case, we could move or introduce the "informative" div closer to the non-testable anchor)
22:27:03 [fantasai]
And process the spec as if they're not there
22:27:28 [fantasai]
We don't have any markup that inserts a normative section in the middle of a non-normative one
22:28:25 [stearns]
ok, let me pass this by Vincent, then I'll write up a modified proposal to the testsuite list
22:30:16 [TabAtkins]
TabAtkins has joined #css
22:32:42 [fantasai]
stearns: we could consider skipping <dfn>s that aren't inside a <dt>, and using paragraph anchors instead
22:32:54 [fantasai]
stearns: I'm not sure about the best way to deal with that yet...
22:36:18 [stearns]
yeah, the propdef tables always have a dfn, and that may not be the best place to anchor a test
22:37:11 [fantasai]
yeah, we'd probably want to anchor to the propdef table itself
22:37:36 [fantasai]
So, good candidates for test anchors are
22:37:38 [fantasai]
a) headings
22:37:41 [fantasai]
a) propdef tables
22:37:51 [fantasai]
c) other tables, if they have an ID
22:38:07 [fantasai]
d) <dfn> of a <dt>, representing the <dt><dd> pair
22:38:28 [fantasai]
e) Anchors to <p>, <li>
22:38:45 [fantasai]
f) <span> if someone wants sentence-level anchors :)
22:39:08 [fantasai]
or phrase-level
22:39:14 [fantasai]
(depends on the sentence)
22:40:15 [fantasai]
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-mark-element
22:40:25 [fantasai]
ah, I'm disappointed it wasn't called <m>!
23:19:11 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css