16:06:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #htmlt
16:06:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-htmlt-irc
16:06:43 <gsnedders> rrsagent, make logs public
16:07:40 <krisk> phl are you around?
16:07:52 <jgraham> plh: ^
16:08:35 <plh> oops sorry
16:08:52 <davidc> davidc has joined #HTMLT
16:09:04 <krisk> Hello David
16:09:05 <Zakim> +Plh
16:09:33 <davidc> Hi, I may have to wander off, but I'll leave irc running...
16:10:55 <krisk> zakim, [Microsoft] is krisk
16:10:55 <Zakim> +krisk; got it
16:11:02 <krisk> lets get going
16:11:42 <krisk> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Nov/0131.html
16:11:59 <krisk> First I see no new bugs on approved tests
16:12:32 <krisk> I removed video_003.htm from the approved folder
16:12:59 <krisk> Also jgraham sent email to the list for harness (or rather framework) feedback
16:13:23 <jgraham> I will reply to davidc's comment at some point soon
16:14:20 <plh> It seems like the discussion related to JPEG Quality test wasn't a bug finally
16:14:49 <krisk> OK lets move on then....
16:15:13 <krisk> last week I sent email to the list about approving david's mathml tests
16:15:21 <krisk> I didn't see any other feedback on the list
16:15:48 <plh> http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/DavidCarlisle/math-parse01.html
16:15:56 <krisk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Nov/0097.html
16:16:24 <krisk> jgraham/gsnedders do you object to approving this test?
16:16:49 <plh> I think James said he was fine with the tests in the past
16:16:56 <plh> so, looks like we're ok
16:17:01 <krisk> OK
16:17:15 <krisk> I'll take an action to move it to the approved folder
16:17:27 <davidc> thanks..
16:17:50 <plh> that's ACTION-14
16:18:37 <krisk> with more participation it seems that we can again start to use action items
16:19:02 <krisk> Lets move to the next agenda item TPAC follow-up
16:19:22 <krisk> I'm looking at my meeting notes from the last meeting
16:19:28 <krisk> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Nov/0118.html
16:20:04 <krisk> Has anyone heard back from Mozilla on wanting to help with the test runner?
16:20:47 <jgraham> I haven't heard anything
16:20:51 <krisk> I'll ping him again and if he is busy will take on the work
16:21:08 <jgraham> I have some vauge plans in that direction of my own, but no running code
16:21:18 <jgraham> So I'm not committing to anything :)
16:21:28 <plh> we're almost done with adding php support and resolving the xss issue
16:21:45 <krisk> OK - when it happens we'll need to update the wiki
16:21:46 <plh> just need to get a final stamp and it will be deployed
16:22:08 <krisk> will the test.w3.org/html go away at some point?
16:22:20 <plh> I think so
16:22:30 <plh> we'll probably need to setup a redirect
16:23:01 <krisk> The reason I ask is that I updated the wiki - with the first use javascript harness, then ref test, then self-describing test
16:23:18 <plh> I haven't made progress on the remote head
16:23:37 <krisk> Plh if you could just send out the date (maybe a week before) that should be fine
16:25:50 <plh> I'll talk to the webmaster
16:26:29 <krisk> jgraham sent email to the list - so I think we should revisit again next time
16:27:19 <krisk> So I'll send out a proposal on a way to 'anchor' tests to the spec
16:28:25 <krisk> The last item is about having a set date for approving all of philip taylors canvas tests
16:28:44 <jgraham> My p[roposal for that is to reuse the syntax Philip used for the <canvas> tests
16:28:54 <jgraham> (proposal for anchoring tests to the spec)
16:28:54 <krisk> OK
16:29:07 <krisk> I picked 1/3/2010 (january) - does anyone object?
16:29:31 <plh> nope
16:29:42 <krisk> jgraham?
16:29:50 <jgraham> no
16:30:38 <krisk> ok then - I'll send email to Philip so he could plan on making updates if a bunch of feedback comes in closer to 1/3
16:31:02 <krisk> Next agend item
16:31:25 <plh> <jgraham> My p[roposal for that is to reuse the syntax Philip used for the <canvas> tests
16:31:28 <plh> oops
16:31:34 <plh>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/test/track/actions/open
16:31:41 <krisk> yes a few are old
16:32:02 <plh> ACTION-5: Complete window security tests (section 5.3.1) (Kris)
16:32:03 <krisk> I'd still like to write some tests for that - 
16:32:14 <krisk> I can update the end date
16:32:29 <krisk> I'll pick a date later in january 
16:32:47 <plh> ACTION-6: Create Initial/Example set ref test for HTML5 Test Suite
16:32:47 <plh> (Jonathan)
16:32:54 <plh> I did create a reftest
16:32:59 <plh> so let's close that one
16:33:12 <krisk> Action #6 is done then (I used this as the example at the wiki)
16:33:32 <plh> ACTION-7: Gather parsing tests, and write up about formats (Geoffrey)
16:33:43 <plh> do we know if he still intends to do so?
16:33:49 <krisk> gsnedders are you still working on this old action item?
16:34:22 <krisk> Lets close it, if he wants he can re-create an action item
16:34:54 <plh> ok, closed
16:35:05 <krisk> The next item is test results
16:35:08 <plh>  who gets to submit/update them? Based on that decision, I'd go through
16:35:08 <plh> the existing results and remove a few of them
16:35:21 <plh> right now, I just publish what I get
16:35:33 <plh> as far as I remember, only MS and Mozilla sent results
16:35:33 <krisk> We should only have one person from the browser vendor submit test results for their browser
16:35:48 <krisk> a vendor can appoint a person if the want
16:35:54 <plh> so, in that case, I'll remove the other results
16:36:15 <plh> since they didn't come from their associated vendor
16:37:15 <plh> so, no objection to me cleaning up the results?
16:37:36 <krisk> we should have a list of vendors and their submitter
16:39:41 <plh> I'll go through the list of results and remove the ones that were not vetted. I'll update the report page to make that clear as well
16:40:10 <plh> James, no objection for me to remove test results for Opera? I don't believe you guys sent anything
16:41:26 <plh> there is also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Nov/0128.html
16:43:26 <krisk> I read his email - the update to the main page is missing information on how to License a test contribution to the w3c
16:44:32 <krisk> I think they can be merged - need have the license and good to have the steps on how to use hg
16:45:13 <jgraham> No, I think that publishing test results at all at this stage is hugely premature
16:45:33 <jgraham> I would generally prefer that we remove them all and come back to it when we have a meaningful number of tests
16:45:47 <krisk> So the last item was to start to discuss rendering conformance
16:47:12 <krisk> We have agreed that the spec doesn't require rendering, though this seems to be at odds with features like svg in html
16:47:15 <krisk> or tables
16:47:23 <krisk> or even html5 semantic tags
16:47:55 <jgraham> It's not really at odds with SVG
16:48:14 <krisk> bad choice of words
16:48:20 <jgraham> I mean you are not really required to do anything with SVG elements except put them in the right namespace
16:48:30 <krisk> correct
16:48:33 <jgraham> The rendering section is kind of semi-normative
16:48:33 <krisk> per the spec
16:49:13 <krisk> that is the issue - 'kind of semi-normative' 
16:49:22 <jgraham> That is, you are strongly encouraged to use the rendering rules it gives, but you have the freedom to adapt to the constraints of your device or whatever
16:49:59 <krisk> The consern is that interop won't happen, though various browsers are HTML5 conformant
16:50:11 <jgraham> I think my position now is that making tests that depend on rendering rules is OK, as long as such tests are flagged as such
16:50:38 <jgraham> Similarly tests that depend on rendering of SVG or MathML
16:51:00 <davidc> fwiw I agree with jgraham
16:51:16 <krisk> How about sematic tags?
16:51:28 <jgraham> I don't follow
16:52:02 <krisk> for example how nesting works sub h1 get smaller
16:52:25 <krisk> My consern is that we end up with tests for HR tag
16:52:57 <krisk> that at 2px tall looks differenent in each browser depending upon how they render an inset
16:54:22 <krisk> Another view is that in theory the css group would test rendering of sematic tags
16:55:22 <jgraham> It's pretty clear what can be tested; the things in the "rendering" section of the spec
16:56:11 <krisk> I'll have to re-read that section
16:57:07 <krisk> The spec needs to get more crisp
16:57:51 <krisk> Shall we adjourn the meeting?
16:58:11 <krisk> We meet again in two weeks
16:58:14 <Zakim> -Plh
16:58:19 <Zakim> -krisk
16:58:20 <Zakim> HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has ended
16:58:20 <Zakim> Attendees were Plh, krisk
16:59:10 <krisk> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:59:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-htmlt-minutes.html krisk
17:00:58 <davidc> davidc has left #HTMLT
17:40:32 <plh> zakim, bye
17:40:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #htmlt
17:40:36 <plh> rrsagent, bye
17:40:36 <RRSAgent> I see no action items