IRC log of CSS on 2010-09-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:24:58 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #CSS
15:24:58 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/15-CSS-irc
15:25:04 [glazou]: Zakim, this will be Style
15:25:04 [Zakim]: ok, glazou; I see Style_CSS FP()12:00PM scheduled to start in 35 minutes
15:25:08 [glazou]: make logs public
15:25:14 [glazou]: RRSAgent, make logs public
15:46:11 [oyvind]: oyvind has joined #css
15:50:54 [glazou]: Zakim, code?
15:50:54 [Zakim]: the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), glazou
15:51:08 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:51:14 [glazou]: aaah
15:51:15 [Zakim]: +glazou
15:59:04 [bradk]: bradk has joined #css
15:59:49 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_ has joined #css
16:00:04 [Zakim]: +bradk
16:00:10 [Zakim]: -glazou
16:00:12 [Zakim]: +glazou
16:00:42 [Zakim]: + +1.650.214.aaaa
16:00:47 [TabAtkins_]: zakim, aaaa is me
16:00:47 [Zakim]: +TabAtkins_; got it
16:00:54 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:01:18 [arronei]: zakim, microsoft is me
16:01:21 [Zakim]: +arronei; got it
16:01:43 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:02:17 [Zakim]: +[Mozilla]
16:02:19 [Zakim]: +fantasai
16:02:19 [jdaggett]: jdaggett has joined #css
16:02:29 [glazou]: Zakim, [Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:02:30 [Zakim]: +sylvaing; got it
16:02:40 [Zakim]: +SteveZ
16:02:55 [jdaggett]: zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:56 [Zakim]: On the phone I see glazou, bradk, TabAtkins_, arronei, [Microsoft], [Mozilla], fantasai, SteveZ
16:03:00 [Zakim]: [Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:03:22 [glazou]: member:Zakim, [Microsoft] has arronei
16:03:38 [Zakim]: +[plinss]
16:03:38 [jdaggett]: so no one is talking...?
16:03:39 [smfr]: smfr has joined #css
16:03:42 [glazou]: Zakim, [Microsoft] has arronei
16:03:50 [Zakim]: +arronei; got it
16:04:03 [glazou]: jdaggett: we wait a few more minutes
16:04:04 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
16:04:21 [Zakim]: +smfr
16:04:33 [alexmog]: alexmog has joined #css
16:05:25 [TabAtkins_]: ScribeNick: TabAtkins_
16:05:40 [TabAtkins_]: [quote="squareroot"]312 centimeters is 122.834646... and your program is casting this fraction ('double') into an integer. Whenever you cast a double into an integer, it rounds down. So 122.83 [i]should[/i] be rounded up to 123 inches (which happens to be 3yd, 1ft, 3in) but is instead rounded down to 122 (3yd, 1ft, 2in). I've never actually written an C, so I don't know what it uses for rounding, but you should be doing something like inches = round(centim
16:05:47 [TabAtkins_]: EDIT: Okay, looks like you'll want to #include <math.h>, and then just write... inches = round(centimeters/CENT_PER_INCH). Just like I guessed before. :-P[/quote]
16:05:50 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:05:51 [TabAtkins_]: Sorry it took so long, but thanks! We haven't actually covered the math preprocessor thing, but seeing as her way didn't work, too bad if she complains.
16:05:52 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #css
16:05:54 [TabAtkins_]: Holy crap. Sorry. Paste error.
16:06:26 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: We need a wiki page for agenda items during TPAC.
16:06:33 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Elika, can you set up a wiki page?
16:06:35 [TabAtkins_]: plinss_: Already done.
16:06:36 [plinss_]: http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/tpac-2010
16:06:54 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: CSS 2.1 TestSuite. Deadline was Sep 15, where are we?
16:07:05 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: I'm planning to build the testsuite and publish it later today.
16:07:16 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: We'll call this one RC1.
16:07:26 [Zakim]: +??P39
16:07:34 [sylvaing]: sylvaing has joined #css
16:07:36 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft.a]
16:07:51 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Issue 101, Tab sent an email that he wasn't ready.
16:08:02 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: I'll have it before next call. I can do it by Friday.
16:08:10 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Issue 154 is on Arron and John.
16:08:13 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-154
16:08:32 [TabAtkins_]: arronei: 154 I've submitted a few images. I think they're correct, though Elika's called out a few things. I'll see today if they need any altering.
16:08:38 [JohnJansen]: JohnJansen has joined #css
16:08:47 [TabAtkins_]: arronei: We may not define all the terms that I use, but we use them extensively in the spec.
16:08:56 [TabAtkins_]: arronei: We should probably define them.
16:09:28 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Action on everyone - review the images for 154.
16:09:41 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Next issue is 173, on Elika.
16:09:41 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-173
16:10:17 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: There's a proposal on the list that I sent last night.
16:10:19 [Zakim]: +[Mozilla.a]
16:10:24 [dbaron]: dbaron has joined #css
16:10:47 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: I think the first part is okay. We need to decide on the second part.
16:10:56 [dbaron]: what's the url?
16:11:00 [TabAtkins_]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0440.html
16:11:15 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: [lists the options for the second part from the email]
16:12:15 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: I don't think either choice will end up doing much of anything anyway; if anyone's putting a linebreak in generated content they need to escape them anyway, and the spec uses \A all over th eplace for it.
16:12:38 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: So I don't think this is a compat or author issue, so we should just choose whichever option is easier for implementors.
16:13:31 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: I don't have a favored opinion.
16:13:44 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: I think we handle our generated content the same as DOM text, generally.
16:13:53 [TabAtkins_]: arronei: Basically the same in IE.
16:14:08 [dbaron]: we could send it through a different path if we had to first, but preferable not to.
16:14:12 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: So option B should match the current practice?
16:14:49 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: This does mean that it's impossible to represent a carriage return in a CSS document.
16:15:10 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: I doubt that's important for anyone ever, so it's okay.
16:15:30 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-197
16:15:33 [Zakim]: -??P39
16:15:39 [TabAtkins_]: RESOLVED: For issue 173, accept part 1, accept option b for part 2.
16:16:24 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-159
16:16:52 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: I haven't had time to process the changes in this draft.
16:17:33 [bradk]: is that wind or heavy breathing?
16:17:49 [howcome]: howcome has joined #css
16:17:57 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: I don't want to hold this forever, so please have review ready for next week.
16:18:32 [glazou]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0191.html
16:20:56 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: There was discussion during the last telcon about the issue that Boris raised with the definition, where a runin is clearing one way and the block it runs into is clearing another way.
16:21:12 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: I posted a testcase to IRC and Aaron looked at it.
16:21:51 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:23:17 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: So what needs to be done?
16:23:25 [dethbakin]: dethbakin has joined #css
16:23:41 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198
16:23:56 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: We need a new proposal to address Boris' issue. I can do that; we have all the info we need for it.
16:24:00 [glazou]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:24:00 [Zakim]: On the phone I see glazou, bradk, TabAtkins_, arronei, [Mozilla], fantasai, SteveZ, [plinss], smfr, [Microsoft], [Microsoft.a], dbaron, howcome
16:24:15 [TabAtkins_]: ACTION Tab: Post updated proposal to the list.
16:24:15 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-266 - Post updated proposal to the list. [on Tab Atkins Jr. - due 2010-09-22].
16:24:27 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-199
16:25:08 [TabAtkins_]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0433.html
16:25:30 [TabAtkins_]: Proposal I sent yesterday. I don't think it actually addresses the issue properly, though, so there are some options in the email for better solutions.
16:26:49 [howcome]: howcome has joined #css
16:27:01 [Zakim]: -SteveZ
16:27:53 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: I just need someone to sanitycheck this for me.
16:28:06 [Zakim]: +SteveZ
16:28:53 [szilles]: szilles has joined #css
16:29:02 [TabAtkins_]: ACTION dbaron: Sanity-check the issue 199 proposal.
16:29:02 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-267 - Sanity-check the issue 199 proposal. [on David Baron - due 2010-09-22].
16:29:07 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-198
16:29:37 [fantasai]: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/635
16:29:53 [fantasai]: arronei - what were the test results for that?
16:30:38 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: Steve, you said during the meeting that there was a problem, but you couldn't remember what it was.
16:31:28 [glazou]: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-203
16:32:10 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: This needs layout people to look at this.
16:32:27 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: But elika, arronei, and arronei's coworker all looked at this together and thought it was probably good.
16:32:51 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: I believe the change is fine with me, too.
16:33:16 [TabAtkins_]: RESOLVED: Accept fantasai's change for issue 203.
16:33:43 [glazou]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0233.html
16:33:53 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Agenda item 3, what should we do with min()/max()?
16:34:07 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: All of the issues I found with min/max are issues with mixing % and lengths.
16:34:30 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: There were two ways to fix them - one was to remove min/max entirely, and the other was to not allow % in min.
16:34:54 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: There are cases where we reverse percentages for intrinsic widths.
16:35:18 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: So if you have "width:100px, margin-right:50%", its container is 200px to satisfy the conditions.
16:35:40 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: There's no sensical way to do that with min/max, because there are likely multiple solutions and it's difficult to distinguish between them.
16:35:40 [miketaylr]: miketaylr has joined #css
16:35:49 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: There were other issues that I'd have to dig up.
16:36:26 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: I say we do what fantasai suggests and mark it as at-risk.
16:37:04 [TabAtkins_]: szilles: That means we'd have to drop the feature, though. We wouldn't have the choice to just drop % from the feature.
16:37:11 [TabAtkins_]: howcome: We can just list both.
16:37:59 [TabAtkins_]: howcome: Also you wanted to move this to Last Call, right?
16:38:07 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: Yeah.
16:38:24 [TabAtkins_]: howcome: And you're willing to be co-editor?
16:38:27 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: Sure.
16:38:39 [TabAtkins_]: howcome: I think the two of us should review it through.
16:38:44 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: Agreed.
16:38:56 [TabAtkins_]: RESOLVED: Mark min/max as at-risk, and mark % in min/max as at-risk.
16:39:51 [glazou]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0235.html
16:39:52 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Topic, new list-style-types.
16:40:51 [glazou]: +1 !!!
16:46:12 [dethbakin]: dethbakin has joined #css
16:46:14 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: I've taken over the list module. It extends the number of style types from 6 or 7 to around 100, but it still ends up still missing a number of minority languages.
16:46:32 [glazou]: http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTimg9ULp9vS212+G4f5-Oav63p=Eu+EadAzQmSyk@mail.gmail.com
16:47:44 [dbaron]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0381.html
16:47:59 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: Rather than just forever extending the module with new types and still missing things, I've proposed that we can address all but 1 of the style-types with a set of 7 algorithms, which we can then expose to the user so they can create their own list-styles.
16:48:25 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: I don't think you can get Hebrew simply like that.
16:48:41 [Zakim]: -SteveZ
16:48:42 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: Actually, it's fairlyu simple to do. I have it written down already.
16:48:49 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Including the forbidden words and such?
16:49:34 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: Yes to the 16/17 thing. The other forbidden words aren't forbidden in a list context, according to some hebrew i18n people at google.
16:49:58 [TabAtkins_]: sylvaing: Is everyone okay with the 10/15 deadline for implementation reports?
16:50:06 [TabAtkins_]: TabAtkins_: Google should be cool with that.
16:50:20 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: Not sure if we'll be able to. It's an awful lot of work.
16:50:44 [TabAtkins_]: sylvaing: Can you be more specific?
16:51:08 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: It's a question of resources at Mozilla, I think David said before.
16:52:10 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: I think that Tab and I can possibly help if we can dig up HP's system and ask for volunteers to help with the report, because then it's easy for one person to submit a small number of results.
16:52:29 [TabAtkins_]: sylvaing: So it sounds like we can get an impl report from Google. Maybe from Moz. What about Opera?
16:52:34 [TabAtkins_]: howcome: I can't commit to a date.
16:52:46 [bradk]: What about Apple?
16:53:09 [smfr]: i imagine chrome's results would be equivalent to apple's (both webkit)
16:53:24 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: I'm a bit puzzled, because this is the last effort of a long line. Everything depends on this last effort.
16:53:35 [bradk]: I thought there was some forking between Safari and Chrome
16:53:44 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: All the browser vendors are interested in seeing CSS2.1 become a Rec, but it *cannot* happen without this effort.
16:53:51 [smfr]: bradk: very little and the css/layout level
16:53:53 [arronei]: Actually Chrome and Safari have different results. If Apple can also submit an implementaiton report that would be nice.
16:54:11 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: I understand the resource issues, but it's very important we get this. It would be a very bad signal if we are late with CSS2.1 just because of impl reports.
16:54:42 [smfr]: arronei: probably due to different snapshots of the webkit code
16:54:45 [TabAtkins_]: JohnJansen: At the FtF, Moz said it would be okay to do impl reports 30 days after test suite completion.
16:54:52 [Zakim]: -bradk
16:54:58 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: I'm not sure those two discussions were related.
16:55:28 [TabAtkins_]: sylvaing: So should we move the date or what? It sounds like we had agreement on the date, but apparently only 2 browsers are going to make it.
16:55:44 [TabAtkins_]: fantasai: I think we should leave the date as the target, and I'll talk with Tab after the call to see what we can do.
16:56:04 [TabAtkins_]: dbaron: Also I think that looking at an impl report will provide feedback on the test suite.
16:56:09 [TabAtkins_]: sylvaing: Right, but we need impl report first.
16:56:24 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: I'd like to remind everyone that if we shift a lot, we'll be in very bad shape in the w3c.
16:56:41 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: We publicly said that the impl reports will be ready on the 15 of oct. w3c staff read it.
16:56:57 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: So if we shift, we cannot shift a lot. We still need to be in PR before the end of the year.
16:57:08 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: Listening to what david said, I'm scared if it's still possible.
16:57:16 [Zakim]: -jdaggett
16:57:34 [TabAtkins_]: sylvaing: At TPAC we shouldn't be worrying about 2.1, we should be taking it to PR. I'm scared that it won't happen now.
16:57:53 [TabAtkins_]: glazou: So let's keep the timing right now, and see what Tab and Elika can produce by next week.
16:58:07 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft.a]
16:58:07 [TabAtkins_]: sylvaing: And bring this up first thing next call.
16:58:10 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
16:58:11 [Zakim]: -arronei
16:58:11 [Zakim]: -smfr
16:58:12 [Zakim]: -howcome
16:58:13 [Zakim]: -glazou
16:58:37 [Zakim]: -dbaron
16:59:07 [smfr]: smfr has left #css
16:59:46 [dbaron]: Is it OK to test a beta for the implementation report?
16:59:52 [glazou]: yes
17:00:14 [glazou]: as soon as it's publically available
17:00:20 [glazou]: and it is
17:01:03 [fantasai]: tabatkins: datafile - http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/testinfo.data
17:01:17 [fantasai]: harness info: http://wiki.csswg.org/test/harness
17:03:37 [Zakim]: -fantasai
17:03:38 [Zakim]: -TabAtkins_
17:03:42 [Zakim]: -[plinss]
17:03:43 [Zakim]: Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
17:03:45 [Zakim]: Attendees were glazou, bradk, +1.650.214.aaaa, TabAtkins_, arronei, fantasai, sylvaing, SteveZ, [plinss], smfr, [Microsoft], dbaron, howcome, jdaggett
17:17:34 [dethbakin]: dethbakin has left #css
17:23:49 [Martijnc]: Martijnc has joined #css
17:40:13 [smfr]: smfr has joined #css
17:43:47 [nimbupani]: nimbupani has joined #css
17:44:13 [oyvind]: oyvind has left #css
17:51:38 [smfr]: smfr has joined #css
17:52:49 [smfr]: smfr has joined #css
17:53:27 [smfr]: has anyone managed to build the 2.1 test suite recently?
17:53:45 [smfr]: make VERSION=css2_1 gives:
17:53:45 [smfr]: cp: ERROR/src: No such file or directory
17:55:00 [jgraham]: I think gsnedders was complaining about some problem with the build script at some point
17:55:05 [jgraham]: recently
17:55:27 [smfr]: i'm also curious about the state of the various harnesses
18:04:05 [gsnedders]: smfr: CSS 2.1 does not build currently. What makefile are you running anyway?
18:04:35 [smfr]: build-test/Makefile
18:04:47 [smfr]: from http://test.csswg.org/svn/build-test
18:07:44 [gsnedders]: smfr: Okay, AFAIK the normal way to build CSS 2.1 nowadays is perl tools/pub-css21.pl
18:08:22 [smfr]: gsnedders: ok, then maybe the READMEs should be udpated
18:08:29 [gsnedders]: I could just be wrong :
18:08:31 [gsnedders]: * :)
18:08:47 [smfr]: gsnedders: also, http://wiki.csswg.org/test/css2.1/harness describes the "old" system without saying what the new one is
18:08:51 [smfr]: it's all such a mess
18:08:56 [gsnedders]: Yeah :(
18:09:11 [gsnedders]: The new build system is currently broken, fantasai said she'd fix it yesterday/today
18:09:25 [smfr]: this doesn't help with getting implementation reports out
18:09:39 [gsnedders]: Indeed
18:24:37 [dbaron]: Speaking of which, is there a good way to find out if the tests that I contributed have been included in the test suite or not?
18:25:35 [gsnedders]: dbaron: As of whenever the WG decided it, all submitted tests are in, whether reviewed or not
18:25:44 [hyatt]: hyatt has joined #css
18:27:22 [dbaron]: so I contributed a test for 10.3.3, for example, and I don't see it in the previous release of the test suite.
18:27:29 [dbaron]: Can I tell if it's going to be in the one that happens today?
18:29:09 [gsnedders]: dbaron: If it's in /contributors/dbaron/submitted/css2.1 or /approved/css2.1/src it should be in, I think
18:31:09 [dbaron]: it's in /contributors/mozilla/incoming/css2.1/, looks like
18:31:32 [gsnedders]: Then it's not where it should be if it's actually been submitted to the testsuite
18:31:41 [gsnedders]: (which is s/incoming/submitted/)
18:31:43 [dbaron]: should I move it?
18:31:48 [gsnedders]: dbaron: Go ahead
18:34:27 [dbaron]: fantasai, should I do that?
18:35:58 [dbaron]: it looks like a bunch of the ones in incoming were copied to submitted
18:36:00 [dbaron]: but not all of them
18:36:19 [dbaron]: and I'm not sure how I can tell which
18:37:45 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #CSS
18:57:51 [kennyluck]: kennyluck has joined #CSS
20:41:36 [jdaggett]: jdaggett has joined #css
20:58:58 [fantasai]: dbaron: I renamed a lot of the tests
20:59:06 [fantasai]: dbaron: I have a patch against Mozilla trunk for that
20:59:23 [dbaron]: fantasai, so are there a lot of tests in two different locations in the svn repo?
20:59:37 [fantasai]: dbaron: In some cases I might have not included the test due to one already being in the test suite for the same exact thing
20:59:40 [fantasai]: dbaron: Shouldn't be
21:00:02 [fantasai]: dbaron: I copied over the 2.1 tests into submitted/ from hg trunk
21:00:10 [fantasai]: dbaron: they weren't copied over from incoming
21:00:18 [fantasai]: dbaron: I studied your scripts for that
21:00:22 [fantasai]: dbaron: so it should be the same thing
21:43:49 [howcome]: howcome has left #css
22:22:37 [Curt`]: Curt` has joined #css
23:32:58 [jdaggett]: jdaggett has joined #css
23:45:36 [fantasai]: smfr: Actually, it does say what the new one is. You just skimmed past the paragraph that said it.
23:45:53 [fantasai]: smfr: I deleted the old instructions and have replaced them with more details on the new one.
23:46:01 [smfr]: fantasai: excellent, thanks
23:46:06 [fantasai]: smfr: I haven't tested the system yet, there might be some bugs with building currently
23:46:14 [smfr]: fantasai: so what's the recommended way to actually run the tests?
23:46:28 [smfr]: should I make them myself?
23:46:36 [smfr]: also, which, if any test harness is working?
23:46:36 [fantasai]: smfr: No, just wait until tomorrow. :)
23:46:43 [fantasai]: smfr: I should have a build out by then
23:46:49 [fantasai]: smfr: I don't think any of the test harnesses are working
23:47:03 [fantasai]: smfr: tabatkins is assigned to setting one of them up
23:47:07 [smfr]: ok
23:47:21 [smfr]: i'm unlikely to run the tests without one; just too much work
23:47:31 [fantasai]: smfr: understandable
23:47:40 [smfr]: even pass/fail buttons and some local storage would be better than nothing
23:48:04 [fantasai]: smfr: If Tab can get the harness to work, we can do better than that :)
23:48:07 [smfr]: fantasai: ideally we'd have some public website, and we could crowdsource this
23:48:23 [fantasai]: smfr: That's the idea behind the current harness
23:48:25 [smfr]: use mechanical turk :)
23:48:54 [fantasai]: smfr: it records pass/fail results, and can be set to serve up tests with the least number of results recorded
23:49:12 [smfr]: fantasai: stores pass/fail per user agent?
23:49:16 [fantasai]: smfr: I'm hoping Tab can figure out how to set it up
23:49:20 [fantasai]: smfr: yes, by UA string
23:49:32 [smfr]: then there's the question of what to test. latest safari release, or webkit nightly? mac or windows?
23:49:45 [fantasai]: smfr: That I don't know. Up to you.
23:49:53 [fantasai]: smfr: I think we do allow nightlies to qualify