Here is the agenda I posted http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2013Apr/0004.html

We can wait a few more minutes to see if anyone else attends (tobie?)

OK let's get rolling!

* maybe mdyck will come back?

* Indeed mdyck is back

The first agenda item I had was the April F2F at eBay

Will others be attending?

<Bin_> I will be attending

One item t discuss (part webapps) would be organization of the github repository

For example I noticed some stuff that had approved/submitted folders

Which I didn't think was the intent

bin: good to hear

<Bin_> Yes, I am listening

<Bin_> sorry

<Bin_> so what is your proposal of organizing the github repository?

darobin/jgraham are you following?

<Bin_> Kris: only you and me here?

I am not proposing and thing per se - just wondering what the 'intent' is since it looks like some stuff is not following the practice that was intially setup

<Bin_> I guess when some group migrates to github, they may have their own naming convention or convention of folder structure

<Bin_> Kris: when you mentioned "following the practice", is the practice documented somewhere?

hang tight and I'll add a link

<Bin_> Kris: are we done here?

Here bin - https://github.com/w3c/html

Now this is for the HTML spec

<Bin_> I see. Thanks. So the diagram specifies the convention for HTML spec. But other WG may not follow it, right?

Now look at this example pull request https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/69

Then look at https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/CR

<Bin_> OK, the first pull request added to directory "IndexedDB/submissions/TestTWF_Paris/rhuet/"

Now every so often a script is ran that takes stuff in master and the cr branches and moves them to http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/CR

and http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master

If you look at http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/ you'll see all kinds of stuff that is not specific to the HTML WG

Now back in December it was discussed and CR would map to the HTML5 spec and HTML5.1 would be in 'master'

<Bin_> I hear you. So irrelevant stuff were put there

Maybe irrelevant is too strong of a word :)

<Bin_> sorry :)

I think it's valueable to have a known good set of tests, thus the 'CR' branch

<Bin_> I think so too. We need a known, stable, and goos set of test suites

Though if stuff just gets merged right into master then master starts to lose value since it's not clear that the tests are correct

<Bin_> Do you want to discuss it in F2F in San Jose? Request an agenda item there?

yes

For example we have some test suites in the 'master' branch and the spec is at REC

e.g. http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/SelectorsAPI/Status.html

<Bin_> I support to discuss it, because a stable, known good test suite is essential to vendors and service providers to have more confidence of the test result

Which I'd expect to have this set of tests in the 'CR' branch

but it's only in the 'master' branch

OK, thanks

<Bin_> That's right. Once spec is REC, and test suite is stable, "master" branch should be "locked"

The next agenda item is that their is a test the web forward event this Friday and Saturday in Seattle

<Bin_> "CR" branch should be open to those CR spec, and the new tests that have been reviewed and known good

<Bin_> And the tests for others should be reviewed and ratified first before puttint it to CR

<Bin_> Yes, from our AT&T side, Bryan, Dan and Jen will be there

yes

at the F2F?

Here is a link to the event http://testthewebforward.org/

<Bin_> I meant "Test the Web Forward" event in Seattle

Oh nice!

I'll be asking for some people to focus on writting HTML5 tests

<Bin_> I won't be there, because I am located in San Jose area.

no problem

<Bin_> So I will definitely be attending everything in San Jose area, like this F2F and any future events

cool

The last agena item was to do some more spec classification of the HTML5 spec

<Bin_> This time, we may not be able to contribute HTML5 tests to this Test the Web ofrward event in Seattle

starting with http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements

any reason?

CSS WG also needs some tests to move a few spec forward (background, border radius)

<Bin_> we are trying, but cannot promise anything

<Bin_> resources and time constraint

IMHO though 2.2 Conformance requirements has some 'MUST's it's just definitions and no actual tests are needed

Which is not clear on the coverage report http://w3c-test.org/html-testsuite/master/tools/coverage/

does anyone disagree?

<Bin_> That's right

<Bin_> agre

mdyck?

<mdyck2> yes?

OK lets move on to http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#conformance-classes

This is a bigger section and the coverage report lists that it has no tests and normative requirements exist

Indeed this part of the spec needs some tests

For example

A conforming XHTML processor would, upon finding an XHTML script element in an XML document, execute the script contained in that element. However, if the element is found within a transformation expressed in XSLT (assuming the user agent also supports XSLT), then the processor would instead treat the script element as an opaque element that forms part of the transform.

and...

Web browsers that support the XHTML syntax must process elements and attributes from the HTML namespace found in XML documents as described in this specification

<Bin_> Good catch

So specifically in this section "Web browsers and other interactive user agents" need a few tests

<Bin_> Agree

Conforming HTML5 documents just looks like a definition

<Bin_> That's right

Same with 'Non-interactive presentation user agents'

Visual user agents that support the suggested default rendering is also a definition with the expectation that tests will come from the 'rendering section' of the spec

e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/rendering.html#rendering

<Bin_> Correct

Looks like User agents with no scripting support is also a definition

<mdyck2> is the test suite just for testing user agents, or also for testing things like conformance-checkers?

That is a good question

The role of the test suite to make sure that two or more implementations can be created that are interoperable

So I would presume that we would want/expect a conformance checker to be able to be created using the spec

So you would need a test for a conformance checker - maybe a page that then is ran by the checker

scribe: itself and would report conformance issues

<Bin_> Is the Conformance Checker itself considered a sort of "test suite"?

Let's talk about this at the next meeting, it's alomst 10am (pacific time) and I need to head to another meeting

<mdyck2> ok

<Bin_> Me too, another meeting in 2 minutes

Since I expect this will not quick converstation

<Bin_> Thank you Kirs, and see you in San Jose

OK let's adjourn

sounds good

RRAAgent, make logs public

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: krisk
Inferring Scribes: krisk

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: Bin_Hu

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!


WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 09 Apr 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/04/09-htmlt-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report