16:06:48 RRSAgent has joined #testing 16:06:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/18-testing-irc 16:07:18 I see a number of people on the IRC - nice 16:07:31 We are going to start the HTML Testing Meeting 16:07:35 Agenda -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2013Jun/0003.html 16:07:59 Note that we don't have a conf call setup, IRC has worked very well... 16:08:17 ...though if someone really wants a conf call we can ask the w3c to set it up again. 16:11:08 TOPIC: Tokyo Test The Web Forward - any feedback/thoughts to make this better? 16:12:19 On the TestTWF subject: 16:12:36 heads-up that Adobe is giving W3C the brand. 16:12:56 Watching github it looks like we had a number of submissions (good) 16:13:04 which will be used as the umbrella brand for the whole web testing effort 16:13:32 mdyck has joined #testing 16:13:33 events will continue to be organized by the folks who have organized them so far 16:13:39 mdyck_web has joined #testing 16:13:52 We're busy transitioning the website right now. 16:13:57 repo is here: 16:13:57 Bin_Hu has joined #testing 16:14:07 Hello Bin! 16:14:12 mdyck has left #testing 16:14:13 Hi Kris 16:14:14 https://github.com/w3c/testtwf-website 16:14:20 tobie: I see that :) 16:14:48 staging url: http://www.testthewebforward-staging.org/ 16:14:49 Tobie are you now the new Rebecca? 16:15:22 krisk: no, the plan is for events related things to continue as before 16:15:36 OK 16:15:53 we might formalize it with a task force as part of the Web Testing IG 16:16:23 Another task force? 16:17:05 Ms2ger: yeah whatever 16:17:30 TF = name for a group of people where one does all the work and legitimizes it by virtue of the presence of the others in the group. 16:17:38 don't quote me on that. 16:17:40 :P 16:17:48 A Tobie Force, if you will 16:18:04 :) 16:18:13 except I wouldn't be doing anything in that area. 16:18:25 tobie did you attend the event? 16:18:29 I did. 16:18:38 I can even prove it: 16:18:53 I'm just sad that we had a nice list of things we'd like tests for, and nothing materialized 16:18:54 It looks like some FORM tests were created for HTML, good 16:18:59 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0K8EnEicV-U/Ub8nSvFwjJI/AAAAAAAAXaw/ZSQlt4f42tc/s320/IMG_20130608_171557-MOTION.gif 16:19:15 ..but that is about it, bad 16:19:21 (dino attack) 16:20:17 So everything we can do to help answer the question of "where should I start?" is a winner. 16:20:30 And an hour 16:20:31 * I never would have been able to come up with an url like that - the capital ZSQ in the thrid folder amazingly creative! 16:21:02 (Because I have it scheduled for next week at 5pm, not this week at 6pm) 16:21:16 Ms2ger: likewise. 16:21:25 I'm here by accident and against my will. 16:22:08 tobie: seems like at some point we could be more direct on the 'http://www.testthewebforward-staging.org/' site and ask for specific test focus areas 16:22:09 wondering if generating templates already in the repo would help 16:22:23 krisk: agreed 16:23:58 action: update http://www.testthewebforward-staging.org/ to enumerate specs and areas in specs that need tests 16:25:24 moving on... 16:25:44 TOPIC: CfC: Approve overview of testing in view of permissive CR exit criteria 16:26:12 The HTML co-chairs posted this http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0033.html 16:27:35 The deadline is July 15th to list sections in the spec that are 'green' and should not be 'green' 16:28:06 I propose the following response from the TF: "Though the vast majority of the specification is severely lacking in tests and interoperability, any time spent on objections to this CfC would be wasted." 16:31:05 I was looking at it in a different view - are all the sections in 'green' really 'green' 16:31:30 On the testing front, we'd like to distinguish between tests needed to prove the HTML5 spec can be implemented in an interoperable way (so that it can move along the REC track) from tests needed to prove user agents implement the specs correctly and in an interoperable way. It's the latter we're interested in and that will make for a better, more interoperable web. 16:32:08 For example section 3.3 Interactions with XPath and XSLT 16:32:58 Agree to Tobie that we need to prove user agents implement the specs correctly and in an interoperable way. 16:33:29 I think CFC is for the former one, i.e to move along the REC track. 16:33:41 Bin_Hu: it is. 16:33:57 I don't have an opinion on the specifics. For the testing project, this document can help prioritization and gives us an indication of the areas in which HTML WG members will need to author tests. 16:34:13 The CFC shouldn't be the guideline for our ongoing testing work and goal in this open web testing effort 16:34:26 Beyond that, we'll ultimately need full coverage. 16:34:51 Yes, we need full coverage. 16:35:42 tobie: i don't understand how you can distinguish the two kinds of tests 16:36:09 mdyck_web: I tentatively agree. 16:36:54 Well if anyone has a specifics sections that should not be 'green' then please provide data that shows this is not the case. 16:37:05 To move along the REC track, a WG has to convince the director that the spec is implementable in an interop way. 16:37:15 I don't think the co-chairs or HTML WG will disagree 16:37:53 mdyck_web: two implementations that claim interop is usually sufficient. 16:38:09 Glenn pointed several sections, but got pushed back 16:38:36 mdyck_web: claiming interop can be backed up by tests, or other relevant data. 16:39:07 mdyck_web: e.g. no complain by developers about a given section could be considered. 16:41:41 Bin: glenn raised and issue with section(s) 4.8.9 and 4.8.10.12 16:41:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0036.html 16:42:02 But these sections are not 'green' 16:42:03 jhammel has joined #testing 16:43:56 I'm pretty sure if Glenn listed a section that was green and had a test or two that showed this section of the spec has issues 16:44:12 ..the section would no longer be 'green' 16:44:59 So basically the ask to the group would be that is a section is 'green' and you don't agree just respond back by July 15th with test(s) that show otherwise 16:46:53 Here is the link in case someone doesn't have it http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tests-cr-exit.html 16:48:21 ms2ger: would you be against this response... 16:49:06 "Though the vast majority of the specification is severely lacking in tests and interoperability, here is a list of sections that really should not be marked as 'green'. 16:49:12 Then a list... 16:49:39 I have no interest in spending time on compiling that list 16:51:51 If others do have data feel free to enumerate at the next meeting or on the list 16:53:19 Ms2ger: because you believe it won't make a difference? 16:53:47 Because I don't think it's a useful thing to do 16:54:18 I don't care at all about the HTMLWG's publications 16:55:13 And no, I don't think any such objection would delay the publication by a minute 16:58:16 need to run and talk to you next time 17:01:36 Ok lets adjorn 17:01:53 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:02:10 RRSAgent, generate minutes 17:02:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/18-testing-minutes.html krisk 17:49:35 tobie has joined #testing 18:08:09 mdyck1 has joined #testing 18:08:18 mdyck1 has left #testing 18:54:33 zcorpan_ has joined #testing 19:10:01 abarsto has joined #testing 19:32:13 abarsto has joined #testing 20:15:22 zcorpan has joined #testing 20:48:35 So I only think it would be worth spending time pushing back on the W3C list if it would actually get more high quality tests written for the additional sections 20:48:45 It might get more tests written 20:49:31 But I am skeptical that people mainly motivated by "reach Rec." are going to be incentivised to write deep testcases 20:53:55 zcorpan has joined #testing 21:49:29 tobie has joined #testing 23:28:55 thanks for your feedback james 23:56:07 zcorpan has joined #testing