See also: IRC log
I see a number of people on the IRC - nice
We are going to start the HTML Testing Meeting
Note that we don't have a conf call setup, IRC has worked very well...
scribe: though if someone really wants a conf call we can ask the w3c to set it up again.
<tobie> On the TestTWF subject:
<tobie> heads-up that Adobe is giving W3C the brand.
Watching github it looks like we had a number of submissions (good)
<tobie> which will be used as the umbrella brand for the whole web testing effort
<tobie> events will continue to be organized by the folks who have organized them so far
<tobie> We're busy transitioning the website right now.
<tobie> repo is here:
Hello Bin!
<Bin_Hu> Hi Kris
<tobie> https://github.com/w3c/testtwf-website
tobie: I see that :)
<tobie> staging url: http://www.testthewebforward-staging.org/
Tobie are you now the new Rebecca?
<tobie> krisk: no, the plan is for events related things to continue as before
OK
<tobie> we might formalize it with a task force as part of the Web Testing IG
<Ms2ger> Another task force?
<tobie> Ms2ger: yeah whatever
<tobie> 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.
<tobie> don't quote me on that.
<tobie> :P
<Ms2ger> A Tobie Force, if you will
<Bin_Hu> :)
<tobie> except I wouldn't be doing anything in that area.
tobie did you attend the event?
<tobie> I did.
<tobie> I can even prove it:
<Ms2ger> I'm just sad that we had a nice list of things we'd like tests for, and nothing materialized
It looks like some FORM tests were created for HTML, good
scribe: but that is about it, bad
<tobie> (dino attack)
<tobie> So everything we can do to help answer the question of "where should I start?" is a winner.
<Ms2ger> And an hour
* I never would have been able to come up with an url like that - the capital ZSQ in the thrid folder amazingly creative!
<Ms2ger> (Because I have it scheduled for next week at 5pm, not this week at 6pm)
<tobie> Ms2ger: likewise.
<tobie> I'm here by accident and against my will.
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
<tobie> wondering if generating templates already in the repo would help
<tobie> krisk: agreed
<scribe> ACTION: update http://www.testthewebforward-staging.org/ to enumerate specs and areas in specs that need tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/18-testing-minutes.html#action01]
moving on...
The HTML co-chairs posted this http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0033.html
The deadline is July 15th to list sections in the spec that are 'green' and should not be 'green'
<Ms2ger> 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."
I was looking at it in a different view - are all the sections in 'green' really 'green'
<tobie> 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.
For example section 3.3 Interactions with XPath and XSLT
<Bin_Hu> Agree to Tobie that we need to prove user agents implement the specs correctly and in an interoperable way.
<Bin_Hu> I think CFC is for the former one, i.e to move along the REC track.
<tobie> Bin_Hu: it is.
<tobie> 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.
<Bin_Hu> The CFC shouldn't be the guideline for our ongoing testing work and goal in this open web testing effort
<tobie> Beyond that, we'll ultimately need full coverage.
<Bin_Hu> Yes, we need full coverage.
<mdyck_web> tobie: i don't understand how you can distinguish the two kinds of tests
<tobie> mdyck_web: I tentatively agree.
Well if anyone has a specifics sections that should not be 'green' then please provide data that shows this is not the case.
<tobie> To move along the REC track, a WG has to convince the director that the spec is implementable in an interop way.
I don't think the co-chairs or HTML WG will disagree
<tobie> mdyck_web: two implementations that claim interop is usually sufficient.
<Bin_Hu> Glenn pointed several sections, but got pushed back
<tobie> mdyck_web: claiming interop can be backed up by tests, or other relevant data.
<tobie> mdyck_web: e.g. no complain by developers about a given section could be considered.
Bin: glenn raised and issue with section(s) 4.8.9 and 4.8.10.12
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0036.html
But these sections are not 'green'
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
scribe: the section would no longer be 'green'
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
Here is the link in case someone doesn't have it http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tests-cr-exit.html
ms2ger: would you be against this response...
"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'.
Then a list...
<Ms2ger> I have no interest in spending time on compiling that list
If others do have data feel free to enumerate at the next meeting or on the list
<mdyck_web> Ms2ger: because you believe it won't make a difference?
<Ms2ger> Because I don't think it's a useful thing to do
<Ms2ger> I don't care at all about the HTMLWG's publications
<Ms2ger> And no, I don't think any such objection would delay the publication by a minute
<Bin_Hu> need to run and talk to you next time
Ok lets adjorn
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 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 "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Bin Bin_Hu https jhammel krisk mdyck mdyck_web ms2ger tobie You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy 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: 18 Jun 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/18-testing-minutes.html People with action items: update[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]
