14:56:21 RRSAgent has joined #htmlt 14:56:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/09-htmlt-irc 15:00:59 We can wait a few minutes incase folks from Intel attend 15:01:55 plh has joined #htmlt 15:02:08 good morning plh 15:02:13 good morning 15:02:29 We are waiting a bit to see if the folks from Intel attend the meeting 15:02:33 ok 15:02:36 Is it morning in plh land? 15:02:42 it is 15:02:46 They seem intrested in the 'sandbox' tests 15:02:51 Boston, MA 15:03:00 Yes, I knew that… 15:03:08 Although I gues you might have been almost anywhere 15:03:15 plh it's 11am 15:03:24 it's 6 hours behind Europe 15:03:50 Right, I had just forgotten that you were in Boston 15:04:07 btw, I'm trying to convert philip taylor canvas to use testharness.js 15:04:18 is it of interest here? 15:04:21 Yes 15:04:29 Didn't Ms2her already do that? 15:04:33 Yes - note ms2ger did alot of this already 15:04:34 *Ms2ger 15:04:48 oh he did 15:04:57 but our approved tests don't reflect that 15:04:58 though a bug exists that cause alot of tests to timeout... 15:05:04 including approved tests 15:05:36 http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/approved/canvas/ 15:05:43 those don't use testharness.js... 15:06:04 where are ms2ger tests? 15:06:08 take a peek at http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/PhilipTaylor/canvas/2d.gradient.object.invalidcolour.html 15:06:54 Do you see how it timeout? 15:07:38 hum, that test require manual checking anyway 15:07:51 that are 10 of those or so 15:08:08 Here is the approved one http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/approved/canvas/2d.gradient.object.invalidcolour.html 15:08:35 I'll have a look 15:09:01 In August I recall talking about this on IRC and thought ms2ger was looking at fixing 15:09:15 It looks like a bug that could be fixed 15:09:42 Also not that it impact a large number of tests that have been converted to use testharness.js 15:10:13 In the case of http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/PhilipTaylor/canvas/2d.gradient.object.invalidcolour.html 15:10:42 It would seem possible to not have this be manual since the approvcd test ends up writing 'passed' to the page 15:11:07 ah, my version works :) 15:11:31 really? 15:11:34 that is great 15:11:50 Do you have other updates that are not pushed to Hg? 15:11:55 yes, but I was more conservative than ms2ger in the transformation 15:12:19 nope, no other updates yet 15:13:07 so how do we want to move forward? 15:13:26 I'll keep looking at ms2ger files 15:13:27 ...since it seems that ms2ger has the submitted tests partially converted 15:13:43 plh do you plan on submitting a patch? 15:13:53 yes 15:14:06 For the approved ones? 15:14:15 yes, for the approved ones 15:14:36 I'm trying to generate a preliminary implementation report for tpac 15:15:19 I have some data as well that I was thinking about presenting 15:15:39 In an effort to help allow the spec to enter CR 15:15:45 plh: Based on what data? 15:16:03 I was just going to have a chart graph based on how many tests have at least two browsers passing 15:16:05 jgraham, based on the approved tests 15:16:15 ...and not document who specifically passed/failed 15:16:17 That's not going to cover much 15:16:43 Seems it would be really useful to have a measure of which parts of the spec actually have coverage 15:17:16 As well as which parts have implementations passing the tests we do have 15:17:30 And some qualitative data where coveriage isn't great 15:17:56 e.g. Section X: no tests, but caniuse.com says 3 browsers implement this already 15:17:56 I was also going to go back a few years and show simalar data 15:18:53 I think it's important to focus on all the features that browsers have all added/imnplemented in the past 3->4 years 15:19:44 I think I diagree with that 15:19:44 Stuff like History API, Canvas, HTML Audio/Video are all good examples of features that have been added and that are highly interoperable in current browsers 15:19:48 *disagree 15:20:17 At least, if the goal is to find non-interoperability (which it should be), then older stuff is at least as valuable 15:20:55 in terms of determining the coverage, what data do we have? 15:20:55 Yes and I recall that the 2014 Plan is to remove stuff from the HTML5 spec that is not interoperable 15:21:33 krisk: That sounds like a very dubious plan to me 15:21:48 Well another way to view the problem is that the spec is huge... 15:22:02 Another way to view the problem is that the platform is large 15:22:09 And interconnected 15:22:21 small specs leave interoperability gaps at the edges 15:22:32 and we do have tests that cover big chunks of the spec and the test we do have don't show alot of interop issues 15:22:47 E.g. canvas, html5 video/audio, parser 15:22:59 Parser is the great success story :) 15:23:28 So it would seem to be important to have the WG agree that these parts of the spec are stable and enough to enter CR 15:23:50 Then we can start to look at other areas of the spec that don't have tests and are viewed as not interoperable 15:23:56 Make sense? 15:26:02 More or less, I think 15:26:13 Sorry if I am typing to fast... 15:26:46 I suspect the co-chairs (plh) can correct me do want to see some more data from the testing task force 15:27:09 I think it would not be unreasonable to take the table of contents 15:27:13 ..e.g. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html 15:27:38 and for each section have data... 15:28:23 For example 15:28:35 4.8.2 The iframe element (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#the-iframe-element) 15:29:13 I think that would be excellent 15:29:25 If we understand what the limitations of the data are 15:29:43 Then list out what we know today...Implemented in browsers - sandbox is only implemented by webkit, ie and FF17 15:31:35 I would expect this to generate alot of discussion 15:32:03 For example in this part of the spec has the 'seamless' attribute which I think only chrome supports 15:33:19 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html/rev/40ed9a085839 <- I just pushed some script scheduling tests that Opera had previosuly released in a more useless location 15:33:20 plh do you think this is what the co-chairs need for the director to have the spec enter CR? 15:33:35 (that was a little off topic, I know) 15:33:44 kris, yes 15:34:01 (hopefully I got the most up-to-date versions of everything) 15:36:07 Nice are these all HTML5 tests? 15:37:05 In what sense? 15:37:23 e.g. http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Opera/script_scheduling/044.html 15:37:50 This looks like a webapp dom event test 15:38:12 ..not that I looked super close at the test 15:38:13 Well the mutation event ones are hard to classify of course 15:38:34 But that's exactly my point about tests that span the gaps between specs :) 15:38:50 Though script execution is a very key part of interop 15:39:14 (in general this testsuite was designed to find bugs; it wasn't written with the goal of being a spec testsuite) 15:39:33 Makes total sense 15:40:15 OK lets cover the agenda! 15:40:25 I don't think the Intel folks will be attending 15:41:02 I think the sandbox tests are intresting, since it seems like firefox will be supporting this attribute soon as well. 15:41:31 jgraham are you intrested in these tests? 15:42:43 Well not more than any other tests 15:42:57 So, "yes", I guess :) 15:43:46 That covers the 'sandbox' part of the agenda 15:43:59 Now let's look at new test submission 15:44:43 ms2ger seems to have submitted tests from webkit and adam barth 15:44:44 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html/rev/eed0adf06401 15:45:07 see -> http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/WebKit/Location/ 15:46:00 plh I'm not a lawyer but what does this mean http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/WebKit/Location/LICENSE? 15:47:41 Seems to be a 3 clause BSD license 15:48:09 s/3/2 15:49:38 it seems compatible to me 15:49:43 but I'm not a lawyer 15:49:52 I could ask 15:50:54 Plh can you just check (not right now) that adam is part of the html wg and confirm that this license is the equivalent to the current w3c test suite license? 15:51:39 Adam isn't part of the wg 15:51:40 e.g http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-license.html 15:51:45 but that shouldn't be a pb I think 15:51:47 and http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/03-bsd-license.html 15:52:06 The tests seem to be broken anyway 15:52:14 and I'll ask for the license 15:52:28 By which I mean, they seem to rely on the WebKit test harness 15:52:37 Yes ms2ger hg comment indicates they need to be updated/fixed/converted to use testharness.js 15:53:39 The other test submission was the approval for the Intel audio/video tests http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html/rev/e98fc1cd0ea4 15:54:19 The last new submissions was the one mentioned above from Opera (script scheduling) 15:54:27 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html/rev/40ed9a085839 15:56:07 Moving on in the agenda - bugs on approved tests 15:56:35 No new bugs other than a few more odd dom viewer bugs (e.g. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19306) 15:58:13 Shall we adjourn? 15:58:20 ok 15:58:26 sure 16:01:16 Meeting adjourned 16:01:32 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:01:39 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:01:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/09-htmlt-minutes.html krisk 16:23:00 Ms2ger has joined #HTMLT 17:38:01 Ms2ger has joined #HTMLT 17:56:18 plh has joined #htmlt 17:57:12 Kris, I fixed http://www.w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/PhilipTaylor/canvas/2d.gradient.object.invalidcolour.html 17:57:21 and several others 17:57:39 I pushed the changes into the repository 19:49:33 plh has joined #htmlt