Jeff: discussion of the document license predates my arrival at W3C
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14696] New: This is no longer true: "The end date is encoded as one day after the last date of the event because in the iCalendar format, end dates are exclusive, not inclusive" â so remove ...value="2007-10-20">19... <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0299.html> 4** [Bug 14696] This is no longer true: "The end date is encoded as one day after the last date of the event because in the iCalendar format,
Jeff: so I urge others here to
jump in and correct me if needed
... So, several years ago, the HTML WG determined that the W3C
document license did not work for them
... and the group came up with a list of 11 use cases that were
not possible with the current W3C document license
... the chairs of the HTML WG then brought that list to the W3C
Team
... and the W3C Team took that list of use cases to the W3C
Advisory Committee
... the W3C AC agreed with the majority of the use cases, but
not with the use cases related to so-called "forking"
... which put the Team sort of between a rock and a hard
place
... it turned out that coming up a a suitable license was very
difficult
... this task was handed over to the W3C PSIG
... which did an analysis and proposed a license that they
believed covered 9 of the 11 use cases
... then later in 2010 we decided that we needed to try
again
... and in the end we came up with 3 candidate licenses
... the three licenses try to address the use cases and at the
same time address the AC's concerns about "forking"
... I have not doubt that the PSIG left no stone unturned
... the chairs of the HTML WG created a poll
... in which they asked the group to consider the 3
PSIG-proposed licenses, and also 2 other more-permissive
licenses
... the results of the poll were that a majority of the HTML WG
members responded that they could not live with any of the 3
PSIG-proposed licenses
... for the other more-permissive licenses, the majority of the
HTML WG responded to say that they could live with them, though
there was a significant minority that said they could not
... So, where we are at now is that we do not have any plans to
change the W3C document license
... but in another decision, we did great Community Groups with
a more permissive document license
Marcos: we have seen an alternative solution, which is that editors publish their editor's drafts under "public domain" outside of the W3C
Jeff: we are on record as
supporting a permissive license
... but the Membership told us by an overwhelming majority
(80%) is that when you are on the W3C Rec-track, they feel that
needs to not be forkable
Marcos: We have shared documents, and if the W3C doesn't provide a more permissive license, we are still going to be [publishing versions of the same specs outside of the W3C under a more permissive license]
<KevinMarks> you can't prevent forking by fiat
anne: it seems wrong to me that a
secret club behind a Member-only wall say No to us and tell us
what we can and cannot doe
... there is not opportunity for discourse there
<KevinMarks> all you can prevent is the spec representing implementations that have forked it
Jeff: I hear what you are saying. There is no "opaque wall" if you are part of a Member org, though I understand that it's different if you are an Invited Experts
[Jeff asks how many people in the room are IEs and how many are from Member orgs]
Jeff: The chartering of Activities go through the AC as well
anne: The issue is that many of the members in the AC are not even members of this group
tantek: as a rep of one of those
member companies, I can sympathize
... I've also been an invited expert
scribe: there is the entire AC
that votes on these issues
... but if you look at the participants in this group
... I can firmly say that as a Member, Mozilla does support a
forking license for the spec
Jeff: part of my philosophy of
change is to recognize where there are huge barriers to change,
and to find other areas where the barriers are not huge, and
work there
... so one of the reasons we create the Community Groups was to
address this issue
anne: It would be nice if we were
given reasons for why the AC said No
... the AC is advisory
... and if the Team feels that W3C should have a permissive
license, the AC can be overruled
DaveSinger: I think one rationale
was that they want a single specification to reference
... I don't think we would ever have a case where even if there
is a moderately hostile fork, the W3C does not pursue enforcing
the W3C document license
... so the horse has already left the barn
Tim: one argument is, I want
people to say that they are putting their time and work into
the [common place at W3C] where we have gotten together to do
the work
... and we are all committed to working together at W3C to work
on our specs here, not planning to then take them off somewhere
else
<KevinMarks> the possibility of forking is what provides the social pressure to actually agree.
Tim: the case with forking of
code is different, whereas with standards, [the argument for
forking] does not hold as well
... I think it's important to not fork but also important to
have the right to fork
... so these are conflicting needs
... I agree with Dave Singer that the license [does not have
effect on what actually happens in practice]
... so I'm not sure we need to continue spending a lot more
energy on this
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
TIm: we should be focusing on doing our actual spec work
Sam: This is perhaps something we
can address with HTML.Next
... so maybe we can focus on that constructively
Kai: Companies have one very
strong requirement, which is stability
... when you cannot rely on the standards to actually be
standards, that is a huge issue
... W3C through its process guarantees stability
... my recommendation to my own company is that we have to
completely ignore anything that comes out of the WHATWG
... just breaking out of the process because you don't like it
is [not good]
Jeff: I do not work for any of
the companies that didn't support forking
... but I know some of the reasons that we given
... I heard some companies saying that they do not want forking
because we want one Web
... they said they don't want to see the Web get
fractured
... for example, if some companies said they wanted a Web that
has DRM features that are not part of a W3C standard
... I also agree with what David said, that maybe we need to do
more educate, to help companies understand permissive
licensing
... and I understand that Tim also supports doing such
education
tantek: we all want one Web
... I think there are maybe some disagreements about how we get
there
... in a past role, I was at Microsoft, and there was a
standard called DVB-HTML
... and what happened to that standard?
Jeff: It died.
<KevinMarks> lets not even mention WAP
tantek: right. It's doomed to fail. In the long run , the one that survives in the one that's supported by reputation
<markw> CE-HTML is very much alive in OIPF, HbbTV etc.
tantek: I want to praise the W3C
for the Community Groups
... it is our intent to develop the Fullscreen API in a
Community Group with a forking license
... and it is more likely that for [new work we do] we are
going to choose to pursue those in a Community Group
Jeff: one small clarification, I was neither taking a position for or against forking licenses
scribe: I was sharing what I
heard
... this is consensus-driven org
... we saw a consensus to provide a more permissive license for
Community Groups
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
scribe: but we did not yet see a
consensus to provide a more permissive license for Working
Groups
... but that could change and we could revisit it
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<krisk> scribe: krisk
<plh> --> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next HTML next wiki
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/next - W3C Wiki (at www.w3.org)
mikesmith: This meeting is to talk about what features we could add to the next version of html
samruby: the wiki is a location
to store and track items we could potentially do in
HTML.NEXT
... this was last updated in june
tantek: when we re-charted can we move the wiki?
paulcotton: Can you give a rational why to move?
tantek: it'll lower the cost to collaborate with other w3c groups (less logins..etc..)
mikesmith: all you need is a w3c
user/password for w3c wiki's
... though html requires a HTML WG account to update the html
wiki
karl: the main wiki was initially created for SW community, "forked" by QA WG, then more general including documentation. Some people were not comfortable using the wiki
samruby: Is the content updated on the HTML.NEXT wiki?
<MikeSmith> a shorter list of possible HTML.Next features from my recent presentation: http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/TPAC/HTML5/#(15)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Update (at www.w3.org)
davidslinger: these are all good items - though we should also start to add issues that we have with the current HTML5 spec to this wiki
Mikesmith: we have a bugzilla to track html.next bugs
<tantek> per mikesmith's point about w3c's wiki being more open/accessible - I see that as an advantage.
slinger: can we add a link to this from the wiki?
samruby: I'm not concerned with where it's at rather that we have it all in one place
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=HTML.next
<pimpbot> Title: Components for HTML.next (at www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML.next&component=default&resolution=---
<pimpbot> Title: Bug List (at www.w3.org)
jamesgraham: to add some of these we'll need components
<pimpbot> Title: Components for HTML.next (at www.w3.org)
shelly: I have another feature - make sure that all aria roles are in the spec
samruby: can you either open a bug or on the wik - indifferent which type, but it should exist
anne: components are in webapps, but it should use the parser so it should be html
plh: web intents - wants a new element, html may want to look into this as well for HTML.NEXT
samruby: they are creating an new element?
<tantek> let's not rathole on intents please
jamesgraham: if they are breaking the parser that seems like a very bad idea
<plh> --> http://webintents.org/ Web Intents
mikesmith: they don't have spec document, rather it's just a document
<tantek> mikesmith: I don't think he needed the intent element, he could have used the meta element
mikesmith: though they are using a new element it could easily be a meta element
samruby: bugzilla and wiki seems very light...
mikesmith: see the link that mike posted about potential html.next features
http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/TPAC/HTML5/#(15)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Update (at www.w3.org)
mikesmith: input mode?
... mobile browsers seem to have this use case
... one item that hixie removed from html5, is the
datagrid
... some media items...
... playback statistics
... api media additions
samruby: not only datagrid is on the wiki
kimberly: if we start to talk
about forms and mobile
... autocorrect is bad for password
slinger: this is already be taken
care of another WG
... I don't think it's good to think about next features,
rather we should be think about how to get the project launched
in the best possible way
adrian: I like to note about a feature I added that's on the wiki (login)
anne: we should not be thinking
about html.next as a big step, html5 was done
incrementally
... I suspect html.next will also do the same thing...
... components may change how we think about interaction with
existing and new elements created by libs
... we may want to bring some common lib elements back
... I want to see incremental progress
jamesgraham: we should publish one a year with a small number of items that are completed rather than a 15 yeare cycle
adrian: I agree with that notion
plh: I also agree with james
samruby: any more items?
paulcotton: let me replay some of the items that came up with at barcamp dealing with getting specs out faster
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14697] New: Harmonize roles with ARIA <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0300.html>
paulcotton: I'd like to hear tantek view on doing future html work in a community group
<tantek> +1
paulcotton: for example webvtt
<tantek> I agree that we should consider community groups for HTML.next.
paulcotton: the organization is
not getting patent protection because the spec takes so
long
... by doing mondular, community groups, are ways to speed up
the process
mikesmith: we have another HTML community group on editing, so we do have a precedence for doing html.next work in a community group
tantek: I want to follow up with
paul's comment
... Mozilla agrees that doing HTML.NEXT work in a community
group is the right place
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12715] When used to include data blocks (as opposed to scripts), the data must be embedded inline <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0301.html>
<MikeSmith> minutes for the first part of this morning are here:
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-html-wg-minutes-part1.html
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 -- part 1 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> planet: bhueppe: Journalism in the Open: The 2011/12 Knight-Mozilla Fellows announced <11http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/11/04/journalism-in-the-open-the-201112-knight-mozilla-fellows-announced/>
<paulc> test
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14697] Harmonize roles with ARIA <11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0302.html>
<paulc> Mark: Could we actually outsource the generation of tests for HTML5
<eliot> scribe: eliot
<rubys> Art: I like the idea of more directed sponsorship
<rubys> Paulc: are we ready to outsource
KK: up front costs to hire omeone would be high. want to minimize that.
<rubys> James: we haven't built detailed test plans
KK: test reviews have to go on.
not sure where they'd come from
... Where would the talent come from? But it's still a
possibility.
... Set up requirements and make clear what has to be done.
PC: I have experience in this.
XML Query test suite >25k tests
... missed. US Gov't wrote thousands of the tests
... They had some tooling that they fed the spe into to
generate tests
... but also had peoplpe who were experts.
Look for XQuery test suite W3C
scribe: We seem to be concentrating on the browser venders. Have we asked everyone who's going to benefint from HTML5?
<paulc> http://dev.w3.org/2006/xquery-test-suite/PublicPagesStagingArea/
<pimpbot> Title: XML Query Test Suite (at dev.w3.org)
James: We focus a lot on
numbers--necessary--but quality is most important.
... if we generate million tests but they don't find bugs, then
effect is minimal.
... need the ones who will write evil tests.
Ryoske: we had refactoring tests.
turned out needed 10 to the 16th tests. No way.
... important to catch the bugs
PC: XPath and XQuery tests went
for core features first. Subsequent tests assumed the core
tests worked.
... tests got more complex on the outer edges.
Russel: So when do I get a gold star? How many tests do I have to pass?
PC: W3C had workshop to see if
they should do compliance testing
... given nonlegal structure it's unlikely that the W3C would
do it. W3C is not in the certification business. Implies huge
otlays of money.
... Do lots of validation testing. Company would use the test
and make a claim to their customers that they pass a certain
number of tests.
Mark Vickers: If we get these tests done, there's potential income as a service.
scribe: Lots of possible tests.
If someone else runs the test, the legal responsibility
moves.
... could provide regular income w/o w3c being in the
certification business.
Russel: Even if w3c doesn't want
to be in the business, there's a pressing need in various
ecosystem to have cert programs.
... If w3c is going to present hundreds of thousand of tests,
who sets up the buckets of tests?
PLH: are you suggestin w3c sharee that burden?
Russel: yes
PLH: w3c is not in the positio to do that. it will take several years. we have no plan.
Russel: for home network we do, for various components we go through UL.
PC: the logos are expensive to create. w3c is not in that business
Russell: We are expressing an ecosystem need
PC: Different WGs in the W3c have
gotten through rec with minimum required tests
... divide to subfeatures. Create scenarios, and test for
those. Get same result from multiple implementations, then
we're good.
... WGs have set criteria low and sometimes high. If you set
for certification, you set for infinity.
<anne> shall we write tests?
PC: it's important to talk about what needs to be done to get out of CR.
plh: we rely on members to submit
tests. w3c doesn't have staff for this
... so far we are way far from the 200k numbers we'd need for
html5
Wilhelm: Many cert programs have
been deliberately harmful to the success of the web.
... one group made a test suite and froze the test cases. Years
later another client came with those test cases. They didn't
agree with the way the web had evolved.
... not sure how to solve it, but cert is dangerous to the
web.
Mark: Might be some benefit for
w3c providing test suites.
... 2nd milestone in which tests are completed?
... we also just need to be practical about certification. It's
going to happen and the w3c should be involved.
... ideally at the infinite level, but more practical approach
that grows over time. becomes more complete.
... can do this and potentially generate income for w3c.
kk: great conversation. I think
in terms of the customer.
... if you put a logo on something and FB doesn't work, do they
care?
... It's going to take a lot more than HTML. It's bigger that
HTML. Bigger than w3c.
... if you have something on a device and you want that to work
for years, it's going to take a lot.
... Great place to start the discussion.
... PLH to pass a hat for testing resources
Guiseppe: Not clear, is it a lack of money to close test cases?
pc: Maybe we're not organizing in the right direction.
plh: I told jeff i need 40 people and he said sure, give me the money.
DSinger: If you're doing HTML5,
you can differentiate by saying you do more.
... if everyone else contributes tests and you don't you
benefit.
... we urgently need to talk about how people who want to get
certified can contribute
DBarron: CSS2.1, test suite
served 2 purposes: validate spec. Let implementors
converge.
... You have to stop at some point, but the test suite cont. to
evolved
pc: You can find this on the web, the static version used for CR and the current contents of the repository.
DBarron: using test suites as a
yard stick. the density of coverage per test varies
greatly.
... one test could be more precise than 10k other tests.
... Very concerned when a test is used for more than did you
pass or not?
Guiseppe: The are organizations interested. Sd organize and discuss: how to work w/o freezing a test case. and to discuss collaboration.
MVickers: There is another group.
Doing everything we can to use HTML5., Driving the organization
towards using w3c tests and not another standard.
... will follow up and arrange for a meeting. first with Jeff
and then a subgroup of the HTML5 group.
kk: Members of the wg would help.
pc: plh is on point as the w3c person to take this idea and do something about it.
<jgraham> http://hoppipolla.co.uk/talks/testing/testing.html
<pimpbot> Title: Testing (at hoppipolla.co.uk)
pc: we'd like to get to some point where we have more people in the room to generate tests
Link above is to slides James is going through
James: Who has used Mercurial? Afew. Written a test for a working group? Same few.
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
To get test in so you can edit, you clne the repository.
James: once you have the files,
you can create a test
... a tests go into a directory
/tests/submissions/name_of_vendor/featurename
... we create a directory. Use your favorite editor.
... create the test and then commit the test locally. It's just
in your local repository, until you push.
<anne> "added 363 changesets with 2836 changes to 2081 files" o_O been a while since I looked at this
James: to figure out what to test....quite important.
<anne> how do I figure out what to test?
<anne> that is, figure out what is already tested
James: not testing conformance criteria for authors. Looking for implementor requirements.
<krisk> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#tabular-data
<pimpbot> Title: 4.9 Tabular data HTML5 (at www.w3.org)
James: DOM interface has a bunch
of properties. we might test for them...
... caption property on <table> isaimed at authors. Never
look at text in green boxes.
... RFC2119 keyword is a tip.
"....MUST return the first caption element that is a child of the table. If there aren't any, it must return NULL." This is something we can test.
scribe: Writing JavaScript test: Testharness.js (link at end of slides)
<wilhelm> Documentation for testharness.js: http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js
scribe: create a function called
test
... straightforward construction.
... see "Test for the Table API" in slides for code.
... test for two caption in forst case and no captions in the
second.
s//forst/first
scribe: that is simple, can be
more complex. What happens if I insert a caption using the DOM,
etc.
...SteveFaulkner: Is it always OK to leave out child elements
and things?
James: when you're testing things you're not testing validity, so yes.
<krisk> If you don't have Hg installed http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Download#Binary_packages
<pimpbot> Title: Download - Mercurial (at mercurial.selenic.com)
Wilhelm: Gives an indication of how many tests we need. One sentence and I can think of about ten things that need to be done.
Link is to Mercurial repository. Need to get Mercurial.
James: to find out what tests are
needed, look at what's submitted, or reach out to testing task
force
... to run the test, run it in the browser. It says pass or
fail. You can add something to the assert message to make it
more useful, but in general, pass/fail.
... We have a way to link tests to a section of the spec
kk: it's a big spec. It's hard to know where it's from
Peter: Can link to any anchor
James: Theere's a guide to handle the tests
<pimpbot> Title: A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Requirements (at www.w3.org)
James: if you're testing rendering, there's a process on the CSS page
Are the guidelines?
James: Not really
plh: do we need some
James: if the test is right that's good enough
How to address interdependencies?
James: General guideline is to
not make test depend on things. Test the thing your testing
only.
... you have to make some assumptions, but we try to make as
few as possible.
Ryoska: Do we expect tests to restore states?
<yosuke> s/Ryoska/Ryosuke/
James: In general encouraged.
DBaron: I would say that even more strongly.
kk: there are some situations where you can't avoid it. You can comment that at the top of the test, if you need a clean cache or something like that.
Guiseppe: aree they run in the same order?
James: No guarantees.
kk: they should pass in any order. No order is assumed.
James: maybe now is a good time to stop, pick a part of the spec and write a test.
kk: Memory leak. We're supposed to validate that the normative parts of the spec work. Not whether a feature causes a memory leak.
<krisk> http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Download#Binary_packages