IRC log of htmlt on 2012-10-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

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