IRC log of webapps on 2012-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:00:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webapps
16:00:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:00:51 [ArtB]
Scribe: Josh_Soref
16:00:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webapps
16:01:34 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: timeless
16:01:40 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #webapps
16:02:05 [Arno]
present+ Arnaud_Braud
16:02:13 [ArtB]
Meeting: WebApps WG f2f Meeting
16:02:22 [ArtB]
Date: 2 May 2012
16:02:46 [ArtB]
16:02:53 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #webapps
16:03:12 [ArtB]
Chair: Art_Barstow, Charles_McCathieNevile
16:04:35 [ArtB]
Present+ Art_Barstow, Charles_McCathieNevile, Philippe_LeHegaret, Glenn_Adams, Josh_Soref, Tony_Ross, Mike_Smith, Paul_Cotton, Anne_VanKesteteren, Odin_Horthe, Magnus_Olsson, Adrian_Bateman, Kris_Krueger
16:04:52 [ArtB]
Present+ Bryan_Sullivan
16:05:41 [ArtB]
Present+ Ryosuke_Niwa
16:06:22 [JeffH]
JeffH has joined #webapps
16:06:38 [ArtB]
Present+ Eric_Uhrhane
16:06:48 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:06:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:06:55 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
16:11:06 [smaug_]
smaug_ has joined #webapps
16:13:36 [ArtB]
-> CORS Comments from Jeff Hodges
16:14:51 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #webapps
16:15:06 [ArtB]
Present+ Yosuke_Funahashi
16:16:15 [chaals]
chaals has joined #webapps
16:16:50 [tross]
tross has joined #webapps
16:17:23 [shan]
Present+ Soonbo_Han
16:17:34 [chaals]
chaals has joined #webapps
16:17:55 [rniwa]
rniwa has joined #webapps
16:18:57 [chaals]
[Waiting for the local people to turn up. Meeting delayed until 9.45]
16:21:56 [ArtB]
Present+ Doug_Schepers
16:24:00 [magnus]
magnus has joined #webapps
16:24:40 [magnus]
Present+ Magnus_Olsson
16:25:41 [bryan]
bryan has joined #webapps
16:25:47 [ArtB]
Present+ Tantek_Celik
16:25:58 [bryan]
present+ Bryan_Sullivan (bryan)
16:26:05 [chaals]
Present+ chaals
16:26:05 [ArtB]
Present+ Ted_OConnor
16:26:12 [chaals]
s/ (bryan)//
16:26:16 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:26:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:30:56 [ArtB]
Present+ Joshua_Bell
16:31:01 [tantek]
tantek has joined #webapps
16:31:52 [yosuke]
yosuke has joined #webapps
16:32:28 [timeless]
Topic: Introductions
16:32:33 [ArtB]
Present+ Sam_Weinig
16:32:35 [timeless]
chaals: Thanks for turning up
16:32:41 [timeless]
... we could start with fullscreen
16:32:47 [ojan]
Present+ Ojan_Vafai
16:32:48 [timeless]
Topic: Fullscreen
16:32:56 [timeless]
anne: there isn't much
16:32:58 [tross]
Present+ Tony_Ross
16:33:07 [timeless]
... i wasn't sure if the CSS WG wanted to publish it
16:33:12 [timeless]
... i don't want to be a part of the CSS WG
16:33:20 [timeless]
chaals: tantek is part of the CSS WG
16:33:26 [timeless]
... part of the work is CSS stuff
16:33:34 [timeless]
... you don't need to be part of the group
16:33:47 [timeless]
tantek: anne and I worked together, that's probably sufficient
16:33:52 [timeless]
anne: it's also being worked on in a CG
16:33:59 [timeless]
chaals: it should be published in this WG
16:34:12 [timeless]
chaals: we don't have a joint deliverable with the CG
16:34:19 [timeless]
tantek: that's why i'm asking if we can publish in both
16:34:27 [timeless]
ArtB: i don't think there's a process that says you can't
16:34:35 [timeless]
... CGs can do whatever they want
16:34:44 [timeless]
tantek: it's a joint WebApps+CSS WG deliverable
16:34:51 [timeless]
... but the work is being done in the CG
16:34:52 [whitech]
whitech has joined #webapps
16:35:01 [timeless]
... we'd like to publish in all 3 places
16:35:10 [timeless]
chaals: taking off my chair hat
16:35:18 [timeless]
... opera has a preference that it not be done in lots of places
16:35:23 [ArtB]
Present+ Jonas_Sicking
16:35:23 [timeless]
... there's a risk that no one really follows it
16:35:35 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:35:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
16:35:36 [timeless]
... as a chair of this WG, the deliverable has to be published in this WG
16:35:45 [timeless]
... what the CG does is neither our problem, nor our interest
16:35:58 [timeless]
shepazu: CGs cannot work on things that WGs are chartered to do
16:36:03 [timeless]
tantek: I looked for that, but couldn't find it
16:36:11 [timeless]
anne: what if the CG was working on it first?
16:36:16 [timeless]
chaals: it wasn't, the CSS WG did it first
16:36:21 [timeless]
shepazu: it was never chartered
16:36:22 [ArtB]
Present+ Dan_Druta
16:36:25 [timeless]
tantek: Mozilla worked on it first
16:36:26 [hober]
16:36:35 [timeless]
shepazu: we'll have to sort this out
16:36:41 [timeless]
tantek: last I looked, I didn't find an answer
16:36:47 [timeless]
... I still don't think there's an answer
16:36:52 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
16:36:56 [timeless]
... I even pointed Ian Jacobs explicitly to that
16:37:00 [timeless]
... I don't see a conflict
16:37:07 [timeless]
... I don't see a technical or political reason not to
16:37:15 [timeless]
shepazu: what's the point in working on it there?
16:37:24 [timeless]
... why have a CG to work on it there instead of the WGs?
16:37:27 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #webapps
16:37:28 [timeless]
tantek: there are multiple reasons
16:37:32 [timeless]
... one is broader distribution
16:37:40 [timeless]
... another is flexible licensing
16:37:52 [timeless]
... we see no reason not to take advantage of that as well
16:37:58 [timeless]
shepazu: i'm not going to get into that
16:38:07 [chaals]
q+ paulc
16:38:10 [Ms2ger]
shepazu, why not?
16:38:10 [timeless]
hober: fullscreen is an interesting part of the web platform
16:38:10 [chaals]
ack hober
16:38:17 [chaals]
16:38:20 [Ms2ger]
shepazu, that's quite an important point
16:38:24 [timeless]
... w3c is organized into things
16:38:41 [timeless]
... normally things with overlap fall through the cracks
16:38:46 [timeless]
... having it worked on simultaneously sounds great
16:38:53 [timeless]
paulc: i'm an observer
16:38:58 [timeless]
... and just interested in the discussion
16:39:05 [timeless]
... are you talking about a simultaneous publication?
16:39:06 [shepazu]
Ms2ger, because we have work to do in this expensive f2f time, and that's a rathole
16:39:07 [timeless]
chaals: I believe so
16:39:16 [timeless]
tantek: i don't see this as a synchronization dependency
16:39:28 [timeless]
... but the document, as it live, gets published
16:39:32 [timeless]
... it's the same document
16:39:42 [timeless]
... there's some w3c legwork
16:39:47 [timeless]
chaals: from the chair's perspective.
16:39:54 [timeless]
... i don't care what the CG does
16:39:55 [Ms2ger]
shepazu, so is all this charter nonsense
16:40:03 [timeless]
q+ Ms2ger
16:40:08 [timeless]
ack paulc
16:40:10 [plh]
plh has joined #webapps
16:40:22 [timeless]
... i think there's a question of what
16:40:22 [odinho]
16:40:28 [plh]
16:40:41 [timeless]
paulc: when CGs publish, where do they appear?
16:40:46 [timeless]
plh: on their website
16:40:48 [Russell_Berkoff]
Russell_Berkoff has joined #webapps
16:40:52 [timeless]
paulc: but not in TR space?
16:41:00 [timeless]
tantek: correct
16:41:02 [Russell_Berkoff]
Present+ Russell_Berkoff(Samsung)
16:41:08 [timeless]
paulc: so there are two documents
16:41:16 [timeless]
tantek: the technical document would be the same
16:41:25 [timeless]
... there would be 2 separate URLs
16:41:30 [odinho]
16:41:34 [chaals]
s/question of what/question about what the policy should be, and as an AC rep Opera has a position on that, but it is a question for W3C's administrative setup, not for this working group/
16:41:40 [timeless]
... just as anyone could take the w3c document and copy it to
16:41:49 [timeless]
anne: i'd prefer to publish WD/EDs from the CG
16:41:59 [timeless]
chaals: do you mean you'd prefer the work to happen in the CG
16:42:05 [timeless]
... and this WG to rubberstamp it?
16:42:06 [timeless]
anne: no
16:42:19 [timeless]
anne: I mean that the ED is the same one as the CG
16:42:24 [timeless]
... there's no status to the ED
16:42:27 [timeless]
... just a place to comment
16:42:32 [timeless]
chaals: Administratively, that's not true
16:42:37 [timeless]
... there's a question of IPR
16:42:45 [timeless]
... the IPR setup of a WG is different from a CG
16:42:55 [timeless]
anne: Fullscreen is done, so it doesn't matter
16:43:02 [timeless]
chaals: it matters because it sets precedent
16:43:11 [timeless]
paulc: it matters in the same way that someone comes into a WG
16:43:16 [timeless]
... plumps something down
16:43:21 [timeless]
... and it has IPR of someone in the WG
16:43:25 [timeless]
... you can't say it doesn't matter
16:43:29 [timeless]
anne: that was not the question
16:43:33 [timeless]
... what about new comments
16:43:45 [mattkelly]
mattkelly has joined #webapps
16:43:49 [timeless]
paulc: we were talking about the different rules of publishing in the WG
16:43:56 [timeless]
tantek: there were 2 questions
16:44:05 [timeless]
... the goal is to be inclusive of feedback, not exclusive
16:44:15 [timeless]
... in terms of IPR, i don't think there's anything different
16:44:22 [timeless]
... the CSS WG proposed joint WebApps+CSS
16:44:30 [timeless]
... i don't think that's a problem for this group
16:44:36 [timeless]
... you're ok with joint publication
16:44:43 [timeless]
chaals: no problem, we're chartered for that
16:44:48 [timeless]
... we don't want to do the CSS bits
16:45:02 [timeless]
tantek: I hope some of that covers the IPR bits
16:45:04 [plh]
16:45:05 [timeless]
chaals: to a first order
16:45:21 [timeless]
... conclusion: you guys are editing this thing
16:45:27 [timeless]
... which we expect to publish soon
16:45:33 [timeless]
... and there's a question of do you plan to finish it
16:45:38 [timeless]
anne: fullscreen is finished
16:45:47 [DanD]
DanD has joined #webapps
16:45:47 [chaals]
ack ms2ger
16:45:56 [weinig]
weinig has joined #webapps
16:46:03 [glenn]
glenn has joined #webapps
16:46:03 [Ms2ger]
timeless, hmm?
16:46:25 [Ms2ger]
Yeah, timeless q+'d me, dunno why
16:46:32 [chaals]
ack plh
16:46:36 [chaals]
16:46:42 [timeless]
plh: one different between WG and CG
16:46:47 [ericu]
ericu has joined #webapps
16:46:54 [timeless]
... is that WG moves documents along REC track
16:47:11 [timeless]
tantek: I believe that's what we committed to by putting it in the charter for the two WGs
16:47:15 [odinho]
s/timeless, hmm?//
16:47:18 [timeless]
Topic: CORS
16:47:29 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:47:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
16:47:32 [timeless]
chaals: I was going to suggest we do introductions around the room
16:47:39 [timeless]
... we held off doing that earlier
16:47:44 [timeless]
krisk: Kris K, Microsoft
16:47:49 [timeless]
adrianba: Adrian Bateman, Microsoft
16:48:07 [timeless]
shan: Soonbo Han, X1
16:48:20 [timeless]
[Scribe gives up]
16:48:23 [timeless]
16:48:46 [ericu]
ericu: Eric Uhrhane, Google
16:48:50 [rniwa]
Present+ Ryosuke_Niwa
16:48:53 [ArtB]
Present+ Michael_Nordman
16:48:56 [ojan]
ojan: Ojan Vafai, Google
16:49:18 [ericu]
Present+ Joshua_Bell
16:49:43 [timeless]
chaals: we have a spec
16:49:46 [timeless]
... it's finished LC
16:49:53 [timeless]
... there might be a few outstanding comments
16:49:58 [timeless]
... then we're ready to make it final
16:49:59 [shan]
s/X1/LG Electronics/
16:50:00 [ericu]
Present+ ericu
16:50:03 [timeless]
... and maybe start again w/ V2
16:50:08 [timeless]
... anne : where are we?
16:50:13 [timeless]
anne: I think LC is over
16:50:16 [timeless]
... there are some comments
16:50:20 [timeless]
... i think they're all editorial
16:50:23 [timeless]
... and we have a test suite
16:50:31 [timeless]
... odinho reminded me this morning
16:50:38 [timeless]
... we have one open technical bug
16:50:42 [timeless]
... i wontfix'd it
16:50:58 [timeless]
... jresche reopened it
16:51:19 [timeless]
JeffH: apologies for taking so long
16:51:22 [timeless]
... i spoke w/ anne a long time ago
16:51:25 [timeless]
... face to face
16:51:34 [ArtB]
-> Jeff Hodges CORS LC Comments
16:51:34 [timeless]
... i think the spec the way it's architected is technically solid
16:51:40 [timeless]
... but it needs a fair amount of editorial work
16:51:53 [sicking]
sicking has joined #webapps
16:51:57 [timeless]
... what i concentrated on is the security considerations section that brad contributed
16:52:03 [timeless]
... it was difficult to parse and understand
16:52:09 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #webapps
16:52:10 [timeless]
... so i tried to note my thoughts on that
16:52:19 [timeless]
... and made concrete suggestions on how to rewrite portions
16:52:27 [timeless]
chaals: but they're not substantive changes
16:52:33 [timeless]
... this would make the spec easier to read
16:52:43 [krisk]
16:52:44 [timeless]
JeffH: correct
16:52:55 [timeless]
bradh: a simple CORS request
16:53:03 [timeless]
... to most not familiar with the spec
16:53:09 [timeless]
... those reading it for the first time
16:53:11 [timeless]
... is not very simple
16:53:19 [timeless]
... it's based on legacy
16:53:29 [timeless]
anne: it's simple, because the other is really more complicated
16:53:35 [timeless]
[ laughter ]
16:53:40 [timeless]
bradh: i'm not claiming it's hard to use
16:53:43 [ArtB]
Present+ Brad_Hill, Jeff_Hodges, Travis_Leithead, Adam_Barth
16:53:45 [timeless]
... where the line between hard and simple
16:53:51 [timeless]
... seems fairly arbitrary
16:53:57 [timeless]
anne: simple doesn't have a preflight
16:54:12 [timeless]
bradh: but why does this have a preflight and why does this not
16:54:19 [timeless]
sicking: it's not just ones that do CORS
16:54:29 [timeless]
bradh: it's also non CORS cross-origin
16:54:36 [timeless]
sicking: it's based on the reality of how web browsers behave
16:54:43 [tanvi]
tanvi has joined #webapps
16:54:51 [timeless]
bradh: i'm wondering if it would be more clear to non browser people
16:55:00 [timeless]
... to define it as a legacy request
16:55:18 [plh]
-> CORS bugs
16:55:26 [timeless]
ericX: there's no property of the request
16:55:28 [mattkelly]
mattkelly has joined #webapps
16:55:37 [timeless]
... it's just based on what browsers already do
16:55:41 [glenn]
16:55:42 [dveditz]
dveditz has joined #webapps
16:55:57 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webapps
16:56:07 [ekr]
I was "Eric Rescorla". handle == "ekr"
16:56:18 [timeless]
16:56:23 [ArtB]
Present+ Eric_Rescorla
16:56:33 [timeless]
bradh: there's a goal of not adding security footprint
16:56:44 [timeless]
... we're just explaining that we're not adding
16:56:50 [timeless]
anne: we could add some comments/notes
16:56:55 [timeless]
chaals: it sounds like CORS has a spec
16:57:02 [yosuke]
Present+ Yosuke_Funahashi
16:57:06 [timeless]
... but there needs to be better / clearer explanatory material around it
16:57:11 [timeless]
... we could put it in the space
16:57:15 [timeless]
16:57:22 [timeless]
... we could have someone write a Primer for CORS
16:57:29 [timeless]
... and we could trim the spec down
16:57:44 [timeless]
bradh: we talked about in WebAppsSec writing down the Primer
16:57:50 [timeless]
... the spec is intimidatingly large
16:57:53 [timeless]
... lots of browser-eese
16:58:00 [timeless]
... but for the average dev
16:58:06 [timeless]
... it's incomprehensible
16:58:12 [timeless]
anne: i don't think they'll actually read it
16:58:17 [timeless]
... they'll got to stack overflow
16:58:21 [timeless]
... a few have read the spec
16:58:26 [timeless]
chaals: that's why we're here
16:58:34 [timeless]
anne: to some extent, that's why we have the Server section
16:58:38 [timeless]
... which has helped to some extent
16:58:46 [timeless]
... as for "why is this everything the way it is"
16:58:49 [timeless]
... most specs don't explain that
16:58:58 [timeless]
... the reasons can be very peculiar and very wierd
16:59:02 [timeless]
... and it's a lot of work to write that down
16:59:07 [timeless]
... for HTML, there's a similar problem
16:59:19 [timeless]
... the rationale for the various Quirks is strange
16:59:30 [timeless]
... there's a wiki page for Rationale, but it's sparse
16:59:35 [timeless]
chaals: the reason not to do it
16:59:43 [timeless]
... is that you take a spec that's fairly daunting
16:59:43 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:59:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
16:59:48 [timeless]
... and then make it even larger
16:59:55 [timeless]
... and that doesn't make it better
17:00:03 [timeless]
... if WebAppsSpec is volunteering to write a primer
17:00:12 [timeless]
... and you have an Editor, i'm not aware we have one in WebApps
17:00:19 [timeless]
bradh: we need to see if we have an editor
17:00:54 [timeless]
weinig: if anyone tried to understand why everything in the HTML5 Parsing spec is
17:01:00 [timeless]
... they'd go crazy
17:01:17 [timeless]
ekr: this provides the correct analytical framework
17:01:26 [timeless]
... suppose abarth describes
17:01:35 [timeless]
... in W3SP
17:01:44 [timeless]
... that you can set the Foo-Bar header in 50% of browsers
17:01:56 [timeless]
... and then you have a support request
17:02:08 [timeless]
... everytime someone tries to look at security of this problem
17:02:11 [timeless]
... it doesn't make sense
17:02:20 [timeless]
... i'm not saying we need an explanation for each item
17:02:27 [timeless]
anne: if it turns out that more headers could be set
17:02:30 [timeless]
... we could add them
17:02:39 [timeless]
bradh: how do you make the decision
17:02:49 [timeless]
ekr: that's the source of the resistance we're getting
17:02:53 [timeless]
... from people like Mark + Tyler
17:02:58 [timeless]
... they don't agree with this distinction
17:03:06 [timeless]
... it's the claim that we're creating new security problems
17:03:12 [timeless]
anne: i think their claim is mostly Credentials
17:03:18 [timeless]
... not simple-request and preflight
17:03:28 [timeless]
... But that we include Credentials and there's a Origin header
17:03:38 [timeless]
... and that you open yourself to Confused Deputy
17:03:46 [timeless]
ekr: the defense that bradh's section offers
17:03:51 [timeless]
... is precisely that you could already do that
17:03:57 [timeless]
... or "why it's no worse"
17:04:02 [timeless]
anne: but they disagree with that
17:04:10 [timeless]
... because they claim it's not how the web works
17:04:19 [timeless]
bradh: we need to note that we can't change how the web works
17:04:19 [chaals]
17:04:22 [timeless]
... or the whole world
17:04:32 [timeless]
hober: that's the philosophy of the web platform
17:04:37 [timeless]
ack krisk
17:04:39 [ArtB]
Present+ Dimitri_Glazkov
17:04:40 [chaals]
ack krisk
17:04:46 [timeless]
krisk: anne you said the testsuite is done and complete
17:04:52 [timeless]
... it seems pretty wide ranging
17:04:57 [timeless]
... a bunch of stuff says "use localhost"
17:05:02 [timeless]
... seems kind of redundant
17:05:05 [timeless]
anne: not my problem
17:05:15 [timeless]
bradh: we have the whole afternoon to work on the test suite
17:05:20 [timeless]
... i invite you to come and poke in
17:05:26 [chaals]
ack glenn
17:05:35 [timeless]
glenn: relating to the use of the Origin header
17:05:43 [timeless]
... by a Client HTML5 UA
17:05:47 [timeless]
... in Simple
17:05:55 [timeless]
... it defines the use / not use
17:06:01 [timeless]
... in section 5.1
17:06:10 [timeless]
... but i don't see that mentioned in the HTML5 spec
17:06:16 [mattkelly]
mattkelly has joined #webapps
17:06:19 [timeless]
... this came up in another forum that's trying to read these specs
17:06:26 [timeless]
... and understand the implications for user agents
17:06:32 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:06:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:06:34 [timeless]
... that may be based on embedded devices
17:06:42 [timeless]
... that may not be based on existing UAs
17:06:50 [timeless]
... and may need to have compliance testing
17:06:55 [timeless]
anne: I think HTML does require it
17:07:01 [timeless]
... when it does CORS requests
17:07:09 [timeless]
glenn: what about the CORS mode of no-cors
17:07:11 [plh]
17:07:12 [plh]
17:07:17 [timeless]
... because there was no cross-origin attribute
17:07:28 [Paul_Kinlan]
Paul_Kinlan has joined #webapps
17:07:30 [timeless]
abarth: in that case, there's no requirement to send it
17:07:34 [timeless]
... but no prohibition
17:07:38 [timeless]
glenn: that's ambiguous
17:07:49 [timeless]
abarth: whenever you send an http request, there's no requirement/prohibition
17:07:59 [timeless]
anne: if the server responds with ACL Allow
17:08:12 [timeless]
... then HTML allows it whether or not the Origin was included in the request
17:08:14 [timeless]
.. it
17:08:26 [timeless]
s/.. it/... it's only supposed to be if the Origin is in the request/
17:08:35 [timeless]
abarth: that's not the case when you have caching.
17:08:50 [chaals]
scribe: chaals
17:09:05 [chaals]
glenn: the scenario i am trying to figure out is [scribe missed :(]
17:09:16 [chaals]
... is it just a general ambiguity, or a spec issue.
17:09:48 [chaals]
adam: fetch a x-origin video without origin attribute. then we want to drawit onto canvas. Does this tain the canvas. - is that your question?
17:10:00 [chaals]
glenn: Yes. I am also worried about compliane testing for that.
17:10:12 [chaals]
adamb: If it isn't cors-fetch it doesn't say
17:10:23 [chaals]
anne: all fetches are cors-enabled effectively
17:10:36 [chaals]
adam: you have to implement cors to make HTML5 compliant
17:10:43 [chaals]
glenn: But HTML doesn't say that
17:10:52 [chaals]
anne: Hixie doesn't want t require cors for html
17:10:54 [plh]
17:11:14 [chaals]
glenn: SO I would have to require impleneting cors and sending the origin header myself in a separate profile
17:11:24 [chaals]
anne: yeah. There is a bug on this.
17:11:52 [chaals]
adam: THere is an IETF spec that defines the origin header, if you do implement it.
17:11:58 [timeless]
17:12:02 [chaals]
ArtB: what is the expectation of he outstanding cors bugs
17:12:19 [timeless]
s/of he/of the/
17:12:40 [chaals]
anne: think Adam was going to write on caches, defining headers depends on xxx being done, bug 14700 is fixed, 16203 is a bug on the wrong product.
17:12:55 [Hixie]
it's not that i don't want to require cors
17:12:59 [Hixie]
it's that we don't even require HTTP
17:13:00 [chaals]
... should discuss 15312.
17:13:32 [chaals]
anne: We have a header called access control headers the UA generates and send in preflight saying what headers they want to use.
17:13:37 [glenn]
see and re: origin header
17:13:48 [chaals]
... cors makes requirements on how these are formatted.
17:14:01 [glenn]
17:14:27 [chaals]
... We require them to be lower case and require lexicographical order. It isn't a big implementation burden.
17:14:38 [chaals]
adam: What is julian's complaint?
17:15:22 [chaals]
anne: HTTP library implemented at the same level and being case-insensitive can create confusion. But if you implement this in PHP you can easily handle this change from one to the other. I don't think we should fix the bug.
17:15:40 [chaals]
Tony: prefer the way the spec has it now.
17:16:17 [chaals]
adam: section could require a case-insensitive comparison.
17:16:31 [chaals]
anne: we do, but can't rely on them
17:16:34 [chaals]
ekr: sure
17:17:03 [chaals]
ArtB: So we there are no blocking comments?
17:17:27 [chaals]
jeff: without some serious work the result of publishing a complicated spec will be to cause problems.
17:17:42 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webapps
17:17:44 [chaals]
anne: we have what we got, and hadn't been reviewed until now.
17:17:56 [MikeSmith]
17:19:17 [chaals]
chaals: Would prefer to have a split of primer and spec
17:19:30 [chaals]
brad: happy to incorporate jeff's comments.
17:19:43 [chaals]
... think it is important to fix those things.
17:19:54 [timeless]
17:19:56 [chaals]
s/and spec/and spec, but I am not volunteering to edit/
17:19:57 [timeless]
q+ JeffH
17:20:15 [chaals]
... would be good to undertake that work as a specific audience spec, if we can find resources.
17:20:30 [MikeSmith]
ack JeffH
17:20:34 [chaals]
jeff: That's why I proposed text...
17:22:21 [chaals]
jeff: Brad is volunteering to make the security considerations work *in the existing spec*.
17:22:37 [chaals]
... There is the other task, of explaining CORS to a wider audience who need that.
17:23:11 [timeless]
q+ to ask if the FAQ should really be in the spec instead of in a wiki
17:23:34 [chaals]
... No known editor is available at this time.
17:23:43 [MikeSmith]
17:23:45 [chaals]
ArtB: After Brad reflects Jeff's comments, we can go to CR?
17:24:03 [chaals]
anne: I think so.
17:24:13 [timeless]
ack me
17:24:13 [Zakim]
timeless, you wanted to ask if the FAQ should really be in the spec instead of in a wiki
17:24:14 [chaals]
Josh: I will send some editorial comments
17:24:48 [chaals]
timeless: FAQs should be updated live.
17:25:04 [chaals]
anne: right. That's fine to separate out.
17:25:14 [chaals]
timeless: think it should be moved out, to a wiki.
17:25:27 [chaals]
anne: sure. File an editorial bug on the spec.
17:25:34 [chaals]
... ditto for use cases.
17:26:27 [rniwa_]
rniwa_ has joined #webapps
17:26:40 [chaals]
chaals: so we need some editorial work, and it can go to CR. Who is test facilitator?
17:26:49 [MikeSmith]
17:26:55 [chaals]
odin: Me. We will be working on that this afternoon in webappsec
17:27:04 [MikeSmith]
17:27:24 [MikeSmith]
17:27:59 [timeless]
scribe: Josh_Soref
17:28:02 [timeless]
scribenick: timeless
17:28:11 [timeless]
Topic: D3E/D4
17:28:23 [timeless]
chaals: travis + anne, explain it as tersely as you risk
17:28:28 [timeless]
... it holds us back from Break
17:28:37 [timeless]
travis: we've been making steady progress on DOM 3 Events
17:28:47 [timeless]
... the goal as i wrote in a mail several months ago
17:28:58 [timeless]
... was to take what was there and align it with what's in the DOM 4 section
17:29:08 [timeless]
... making the DOM 3 section a basis for the DOM 4 spec
17:29:12 [timeless]
... we're largely there
17:29:14 [tanvi]
tanvi has left #webapps
17:29:16 [timeless]
... only two active bugs remaining
17:29:22 [timeless]
... maybe one or zero in the next week
17:29:26 [timeless]
... and then we start a LCWD
17:29:31 [timeless]
... and then immediately move to CR
17:29:41 [timeless]
... after speaking w/ anne, i think we're in good shape to make those goals
17:29:44 [timeless]
... that's D3E
17:29:50 [timeless]
... any questions?
17:29:57 [timeless]
... if you haven't read the spec in a while, go back and re-read it
17:30:07 [timeless]
... there's another spec, currently called "DOM 4 Events" ?
17:30:12 [timeless]
... jrossi authored
17:30:20 [timeless]
... it contains the next generation of Events
17:30:26 [timeless]
... the next Keyboard/Audio
17:30:30 [timeless]
... i'm not sure what's in there
17:30:39 [timeless]
... we'd like to formally adopt that into the WebApps WG as a deliverable
17:30:47 [timeless]
... and figure out how we rationalize that w/ DOM 4
17:30:56 [timeless]
... the new spec wouldn't cover the Dispatch Model
17:31:02 [timeless]
... just define specific events
17:31:06 [timeless]
... similar to Progress Events
17:31:12 [mattkelly]
mattkelly has joined #webapps
17:31:12 [timeless]
anne: I'd suggest calling it UI Events
17:31:21 [timeless]
weinig: UI Events implies accessibility
17:31:22 [ArtB]
q+ do we have an editor for the UI Events draft ?
17:31:30 [timeless]
... the Accessibility people had a UI Events spec
17:31:30 [ericu_]
ericu_ has joined #webapps
17:31:38 [timeless]
shepazu: let's not talk about that
17:31:47 [timeless]
travis: I believe the spec falls into the group's charter
17:31:48 [Ms2ger]
Again? :)
17:31:54 [timeless]
ArtB: is jrossi willing to take the lead?
17:31:57 [timeless]
travis: I believe he is
17:32:06 [Ms2ger]
Leading more than D3E?
17:32:07 [timeless]
[ Bike shedding about name ]
17:32:17 [timeless]
travis: that's all i have
17:32:21 [timeless]
[ Break ]
17:32:31 [timeless]
[ Back at 10:50 ]
17:36:40 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webapps
17:38:07 [jsbell]
jsbell has joined #webapps
17:42:41 [Arno]
Arno has joined #webapps
17:45:26 [JeffH]
JeffH has joined #webapps
17:51:28 [timeless]
Topic: Specs severed from HTML
17:51:35 [timeless]
chaals: Hixie does technical work on them
17:51:45 [timeless]
... and then someone takes that and walks them through the process hoops
17:52:26 [timeless]
ArtB: right now we have 5 specs in progress
17:52:34 [timeless]
... Server Sent Events just started LC 5 days ago
17:52:42 [timeless]
... we talked about it briefly yesterday
17:52:47 [timeless]
... the comment deadline is in a few weeks
17:52:56 [timeless]
... there's an ACTION that chaals + odinho agreed to for tests
17:53:03 [timeless]
... Messaging
17:53:11 [timeless]
... CR published Yesterday
17:53:25 [timeless]
... we noted yesterday that this has the broadest deployment of all
17:53:28 [timeless]
... but no tests
17:53:35 [timeless]
... I sent a call for tests, yesterday
17:53:37 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:53:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
17:53:47 [timeless]
... do any of you browser vendors have tests for Post Messaging?
17:53:58 [timeless]
adrianba: I think we had some Post Message tests as part of the HTML5 WG
17:54:05 [timeless]
krisk: they might be in CVS there
17:54:15 [timeless]
ArtB: what's the probability they were using Test Harness?
17:54:19 [timeless]
krisk: it was pre-Test Harness
17:54:25 [timeless]
ArtB: could you guys be a Test Facilitator?
17:54:34 [timeless]
krisk: maybe, there's another person on the team who could potentially help
17:54:42 [timeless]
ArtB: I could follow up with you?
17:54:45 [timeless]
krisk: Alex
17:54:50 [timeless]
ArtB: anything else on Messaging?
17:54:54 [timeless]
... Sockets
17:54:59 [timeless]
... we have krisk as the Test Facilitator
17:55:05 [timeless]
... maybe krisk can give a brief update
17:55:06 [timeless]
krisk: sure
17:55:25 [timeless]
... anne was talking about yesterday relating to surrogate pairs
17:55:32 [timeless]
... there is tests for it
17:55:39 [timeless]
... multiple browsers pass
17:55:44 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #webapps
17:55:48 [timeless]
... Firefox, IE, Chrome, maybe even Opera
17:55:54 [timeless]
... there's a bug
17:56:04 [timeless]
... and a proposal to put in replacements
17:56:09 [timeless]
anne: the unicode replacement character
17:56:15 [anne]
17:56:17 [timeless]
... the reason is to get consistency in the platform ... with XHR
17:56:32 [MikeSmith]
I don't fined any postmsg tests in the tree
17:56:57 [timeless]
17:57:10 [timeless]
ArtB: is that the only bug in the list that you guys consider critical?
17:57:17 [timeless]
anne: ArrayBuffer / ArrayBufferView is critical too
17:57:25 [timeless]
chaals: 16708
17:57:30 [timeless]
anne: 15210
17:57:45 [timeless]
... 16703 maybe
17:57:58 [timeless]
ArtB: so 4/5 of the bugs
17:58:04 [MikeSmith]
hober, thanks
17:58:05 [timeless]
... is there broad agreement to fix them, and go back to LC?
17:58:11 [timeless]
[ No, not broad agreement ]
17:58:28 [timeless]
anne: sicking and Opera agree that it'd be good to change isolated surrogates
17:58:39 [timeless]
sicking: i'm of the opinion to convert to the replacement character
17:58:46 [timeless]
adrianba: what about to the receive side
17:58:57 [timeless]
anne: how can you receive it
17:59:08 [timeless]
adrianba: if there's isolated surrogates going from service to client
17:59:23 [timeless]
sicking: you can have malformed UTF8
17:59:29 [timeless]
anne: that's not UTF8
17:59:39 [timeless]
sicking: what should happen if that byte sequence is sent from server to client
17:59:46 [timeless]
anne: it depends on what type of decoder you have
17:59:52 [timeless]
... which would probably decode to replacement
17:59:58 [timeless]
... characters
18:00:05 [timeless]
sicking: i think different apis would do different things
18:00:09 [timeless]
anne: sounds like a bug
18:00:16 [timeless]
sicking: i think we should use replacement there too
18:00:19 [timeless]
anne: i don't know about that
18:00:28 [timeless]
adrianba: the spec says to disconnect
18:00:34 [timeless]
... and that's what implementations do
18:00:42 [timeless]
Josh_Soref: and this is tested?
18:00:47 [timeless]
adrianba: i believe so
18:00:53 [timeless]
sicking: i believe we should do the same with HTML
18:00:57 [timeless]
... and do replacement
18:01:07 [timeless]
... there's a question of how many replacement characters
18:01:11 [timeless]
anne: that's getting defined now
18:01:24 [timeless]
... the Encoding document will define it
18:01:35 [timeless]
... so the protocol says to disconnect?
18:01:38 [timeless]
adrianba: yes
18:01:41 [timeless]
anne: seems like a bug
18:01:50 [timeless]
adrianba: my proposal is that since we have interop on this now
18:01:59 [timeless]
... we could think about loosening this in the future
18:02:14 [timeless]
anne: what we're talking about here is 16-bit code unit to utf-8 conversion
18:02:33 [timeless]
... the server could use exactly the same algorithm and never yield isolated surrogated
18:02:39 [timeless]
18:02:49 [timeless]
... that could only happen if you use a really weird encoder
18:02:56 [timeless]
adrianba: i'd argue it's the same
18:03:01 [timeless]
... people build web sockets
18:03:05 [timeless]
... expecting the data is valid
18:03:08 [timeless]
.. or it doesn't work
18:03:12 [timeless]
anne: the thing you're talking about
18:03:19 [timeless]
... that the server might send from the server to the client
18:03:26 [timeless]
... you could never generate it from the client to the server
18:03:32 [timeless]
adrianba: people working on web sockets
18:03:41 [timeless]
... have an expectation of strict error checking
18:03:51 [timeless]
... i think if you're going to change that, you should change both
18:03:59 [timeless]
anne: there's a different check for the server and the wire
18:04:05 [timeless]
sicking: aren't we suggesting to change both?
18:04:07 [timeless]
anne: yes
18:04:19 [timeless]
sicking: we should never have malformed utf-8 cause disconnect
18:04:26 [timeless]
... we should transparently convert
18:04:33 [timeless]
adrianba: i'm saying today implementations don't do that
18:04:43 [timeless]
sicking: i guess i could live with keeping interop in the current version
18:04:46 [timeless]
... and changing for v2
18:04:55 [timeless]
anne: how does that work?
18:05:00 [timeless]
... maintain a fork of the spec?
18:05:06 [timeless]
sicking: we've changed implementations in the past
18:05:11 [timeless]
... from throwing to not throwing
18:05:19 [timeless]
anne: do we delay fixing our implementations?
18:05:36 [timeless]
sicking: as soon as there's a v2 spec, we can point to it and change
18:05:44 [timeless]
anne: it's not the only change
18:06:02 [timeless]
chaals: ArtB, you are the editor of that spec
18:06:08 [timeless]
... who is going to make it a REC
18:06:13 [timeless]
... Hixie did the technical work
18:06:21 [timeless]
... but in order to make a stable REC, you're the editor
18:06:29 [timeless]
... do you see it is worth continuing the argument
18:06:43 [timeless]
... or can you, like sicking, live with sending it out and do a v2?
18:06:48 [timeless]
ArtB: i don't have a firm opinion
18:07:01 [timeless]
... on the one hand, we can see who cares
18:07:05 [timeless]
... and additional changes
18:07:08 [timeless]
... and stop the REC
18:07:14 [timeless]
... can we get a show of hands
18:07:25 [timeless]
ArtB: we get a show of hands?
18:07:30 [timeless]
.... who thinks we should go ahead
18:07:35 [timeless]
... who thinks we should block?
18:07:49 [timeless]
chaals: Microsoft Guys
18:07:58 [timeless]
... in favor of moving on
18:08:05 [timeless]
... Opera, Apple, Cox in favor of blocking
18:08:10 [timeless]
... sicking has a fence post
18:08:16 [timeless]
sicking: i have a weak preference for changing
18:08:20 [timeless]
... but i can't speak for Mozilla
18:08:27 [timeless]
chaals: doesn't sound like consensus
18:08:34 [hober]
18:09:00 [timeless]
chaals: (pualc's question) who can not live with blocking on this issue?
18:09:10 [timeless]
chaals: (pualc's question) who can not live with what we have and versioning out?
18:09:22 [timeless]
chaals: who is surprised by that result?
18:09:34 [timeless]
... w3c process says we should seek consensus
18:09:41 [timeless]
... WG resolution is we will block on this issue
18:09:59 [timeless]
... so, that gets you off the hook of preparing a TR req
18:10:10 [timeless]
ArtB: so how do we get the fixes we consider mandatory?
18:10:21 [timeless]
... how do we get Hixie to make these changes?
18:10:28 [timeless]
chaals: given we're forking from Hixie
18:10:39 [timeless]
... an editor, as opposed to an author can edit them in
18:10:45 [timeless]
... those who have blocked
18:10:56 [timeless]
... have an onus to put up the changes
18:11:09 [timeless]
... blocking for a future world is not a useful exercise
18:11:29 [timeless]
... i suggest if we don't get an explanation of getting the changes in a reasonable amount of time
18:11:40 [timeless]
... we'll look back less kindly the next time
18:11:52 [timeless]
... it makes sense as a change, but doesn't make sense to hold the universe forever
18:11:52 [Ms2ger]
I object to a fork that contradicts the WHATWG version on technical points
18:12:06 [timeless]
... please make sure you get back
18:12:13 [timeless]
anne: i think we should just ask Hixie to make the changes
18:14:05 [timeless]
[ We count 4, not 5 bugs ]
18:14:26 [timeless]
chaals: anyone want to pick one of the three?
18:15:01 [timeless]
anne: if you tell Hixie that it's an implementer priority, then he fixes them
18:15:07 [timeless]
... 16708 is another consistency thing
18:15:15 [timeless]
... XHR and Blob have done
18:15:19 [timeless]
... the others, i don't know
18:15:37 [timeless]
adrianba: we won't be making those changes anytime soon
18:15:40 [timeless]
... it's too late for IE10
18:15:49 [timeless]
anne: you don't do WebGL
18:15:55 [timeless]
... but you have ArrayBuffer?
18:16:01 [timeless]
adrianba: we have ArrayBuffer
18:16:08 [timeless]
... it's not like it's a tiny incremental change to do WebGL
18:16:17 [timeless]
anne: are you guys participating in Kronus?
18:16:19 [timeless]
adrianba: no
18:16:34 [plh]
18:16:54 [timeless]
ArtB: Web Storage
18:16:54 [anne]
18:17:06 [timeless]
18:17:20 [timeless]
s/ArtB: Web Storage/Topic: Web Storage/
18:17:57 [timeless]
s/... Sockets/Topic: Web Sockets/
18:18:02 [timeless]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:18:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate timeless
18:18:08 [timeless]
ArtB: Ms2ger went through this
18:18:14 [timeless]
... what's going to block
18:18:23 [timeless]
krisk: some of the results are wrong
18:18:30 [timeless]
... i can't tell who ran them
18:18:39 [timeless]
plh: you can click on a test to see which UA string ran it
18:18:46 [timeless]
krisk: we should have the vendors run them
18:18:54 [Ms2ger]
I ran the Web Storage tests
18:18:59 [timeless]
sicking: is there a way i can run these tests right now?
18:19:06 [timeless]
plh: possibly
18:19:08 [Ms2ger]
There are wrong results where the test changed
18:19:33 [Ms2ger]
18:19:41 [timeless]
sicking: ... on nightly
18:19:56 [timeless]
[ sicking is looking at Constructor ]
18:20:10 [timeless]
ArtB: so, storage is our first candidate
18:20:39 [timeless]
krisk: if we want to implementations pass for Event Constructors
18:20:45 [timeless]
... i don't think we have two vendors
18:20:50 [timeless]
anne: doesn't WebKit have them?
18:20:55 [sicking]
Ms2ger: file bugs and attach patches and i'll review :-)
18:20:55 [timeless]
weinig: we have them
18:21:04 [timeless]
... if Ms2ger is testing lexical lookup
18:21:08 [Ms2ger]
sicking, I've had mayhemer review them
18:21:10 [timeless]
... we may have some minor things
18:21:15 [sicking]
18:21:21 [timeless]
... i know i didn't do the arguments in alphabetical order
18:21:24 [timeless]
... gotta do that
18:21:31 [timeless]
... for dictionaries
18:21:38 [timeless]
... the are lots of small edge cases
18:21:44 [timeless]
... that are part of event constructors
18:21:49 [timeless]
... it's good that there are tests
18:21:56 [timeless]
... but it seems likely there will be minor bugs
18:22:04 [timeless]
... especially spreading out across two specs
18:22:16 [Ms2ger]
plh, doesn't work, plinss wontfixed the bug
18:22:19 [timeless]
krisk: it sounds like some people may pass some of the tests
18:22:26 [timeless]
... but we're not really sure
18:22:34 [timeless]
chaals: the blocker seems to be event constructors
18:23:12 [timeless]
chaals: we don't have agreement on the test suite yet
18:23:23 [timeless]
ArtB: anything else on Storage?
18:23:25 [timeless]
Topic: Web Workers
18:23:32 [timeless]
ArtB: ... another CR just published yesterday
18:23:35 [timeless]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:23:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate timeless
18:23:42 [timeless]
... we mentioned we don't have a test facilitator
18:23:43 [plh]
ms2ger, do you mind if I clear the tests results?
18:23:48 [timeless]
... someone from microsoft did
18:23:51 [Ms2ger]
plh, not at all
18:23:56 [timeless]
... we might have some, but none for shared-workers
18:24:00 [timeless]
krisk: yes, alex,
18:24:07 [timeless]
ArtB: anyone volunteering?
18:24:14 [timeless]
... i guess an action item for me to look for someone
18:24:35 [timeless]
i/Server Sent Events/Topic: Server Sent Events/
18:24:56 [timeless]
s/... Messaging/Topic: Messaging/
18:25:16 [timeless]
s/... we have krisk as/ArtB: we have krisk as/
18:25:22 [timeless]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:25:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate timeless
18:29:36 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webapps
18:31:17 [MikeSmith]
this room is cold
18:31:26 [MikeSmith]
we need a fireplace here
18:31:44 [Ms2ger]
sicking, fwiw, bug 740357 is currently blocking me from further bugfixes (along with tree closures...)
18:42:07 [timeless]
Topic: Index DB
18:42:28 [timeless]
chaals: We got a charter comment asking for a JS api for SQL
18:42:38 [timeless]
... we replied that IndexedDB is the result
18:42:43 [timeless]
s/Index DB/IndexDB/
18:42:52 [timeless]
sicking: looking at this list, there is one normative change
18:42:57 [Ms2ger]
18:43:03 [timeless]
... 16714
18:43:11 [timeless]
... that aligns the spec with what everyone has done
18:43:19 [timeless]
... i'm editing that into the spec now
18:43:22 [timeless]
... 14404
18:43:28 [timeless]
... hopefully everyone agrees
18:43:35 [timeless]
... but i'd like to clarify on the list that everyone agrees
18:43:49 [timeless]
... hopefully everyone agrees it's editorial
18:43:58 [timeless]
... We have a problem with ReSpec
18:44:08 [timeless]
... which removed a significant chunk of the spec
18:44:14 [timeless]
chaals: and you claim this is an issue
18:44:19 [Ms2ger]
Solution: dump ReSpec
18:44:21 [timeless]
sicking: this needs to be fixed before we can publish
18:44:33 [timeless]
chaals: is that editorial?
18:44:41 [timeless]
sicking: it is
18:44:47 [timeless]
... it's preventing us from going to LC
18:44:51 [timeless]
chaals: beyond you needing to fix it
18:44:55 [timeless]
... is it a real problem?
18:44:56 [timeless]
sicking: no
18:45:17 [timeless]
... if we can get those two things changed today, we can publish LC
18:45:24 [timeless]
... any questions?
18:46:20 [timeless]
ArtB: last day to publish is May 8, with a CfC, that's yesterday
18:46:25 [timeless]
... we can get it published this month
18:46:46 [timeless]
sicking: we have 3 implementations at this point
18:46:50 [timeless]
... with a fourth in progress
18:46:55 [timeless]
... you've given a fair number of comments
18:47:00 [timeless]
hober: read through everything
18:47:05 [timeless]
... but when we send new comments
18:47:10 [timeless]
... it's because we got to a new point
18:47:17 [timeless]
sicking: the people i'm expecting comments from is Opera
18:47:37 [timeless]
hober: so far it's things that aren't really defined
18:47:43 [timeless]
... and nitpicking, making things easier to read
18:47:49 [timeless]
chaals: so, LC in Q2, mid may
18:47:55 [timeless]
... do you have a test facilitator?
18:47:59 [timeless]
[ crickets ]
18:48:26 [timeless]
krisk: Alex Kuang can do it
18:48:42 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
18:48:49 [krisk]
present+ krisk
18:49:09 [timeless]
ArtB: i'll wait for sicking's green light to start CfC
18:49:19 [sicking]
sicking has joined #webapps
18:49:34 [timeless]
jsbell: Joshua Bell, Google
18:50:36 [timeless]
Topic: Feature Detection
18:50:47 [timeless]
adrianba: there are two parts
18:50:53 [timeless]
... 1: Dev Education
18:51:14 [timeless]
... we're using the resources we have, and I know Opera is
18:51:15 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #webapps
18:51:20 [timeless]
... 2: Reviewing features we're adding to specs
18:51:50 [timeless]
... for example, Binary Data for Web Sockets
18:52:04 [timeless]
... because of the way implementations did other features, it was hard to tell if it would work
18:52:38 [timeless]
chaals: what happened to the API Cookbook plan?
18:53:44 [timeless]
... at the extreme end, we could bake them into the Process for the group
18:53:54 [timeless]
... do we want to go that far
18:54:01 [timeless]
... and note it for the next time that we've been here before
18:54:05 [timeless]
adrianba: yes
18:54:38 [timeless]
... it's really expensive when people build sites using browser detectoin
18:54:44 [timeless]
18:54:52 [timeless]
... we spend a lot of money telling people
18:55:03 [timeless]
... that assuming you have Feature A means you have Feature B
18:55:09 [timeless]
... if we add just Feature B, that causes problems
18:55:42 [timeless]
chaals: we could block at LC on a requirement to recognize that a feature exists
18:56:16 [timeless]
adrianba: for now, blocking at LC should be ok
18:56:27 [timeless]
anne: kind of uncomfortable with a blanket requirement
18:57:39 [timeless]
weinig: there's an issue with browsers that don't implement properties on prototypes
18:58:03 [timeless]
sicking: there's an issue with Dictionaries
18:58:23 [timeless]
... if in v2 you specify locale collation as an additional parameter in a Dictionary
18:58:30 [timeless]
anne: it isn't exposed in another way?
18:58:57 [timeless]
... you could test it, right?
18:59:05 [timeless]
sicking: sure, you could, but it's a large chunk
18:59:14 [timeless]
... large enough that authors are likely to not do it
18:59:43 [Ms2ger]
18:59:44 [timeless]
... a lot of the time we do design for this
18:59:48 [timeless]
... but sometimes we don't
19:00:01 [timeless]
... for collation, we could expose the property
19:00:09 [timeless]
... which would enable it to be detected
19:00:17 [timeless]
anne: is that a problem if it isn't supported?
19:00:28 [timeless]
weinig: what's the workaround if you don't have it?
19:00:32 [timeless]
... you'd do the sorting yourself?
19:00:39 [timeless]
... so you'd have two code paths?
19:00:47 [timeless]
sicking: or you could use munged sortable strings
19:01:08 [timeless]
weinig: that wouldn't be the locale of the computer
19:01:14 [timeless]
sicking: no, just a specific locale
19:01:23 [timeless]
weinig: it seems like dictionaries pose a little problem
19:01:26 [timeless]
... but not a huge one
19:01:54 [timeless]
sicking: one thing developers have asked for is to see if a given event is supported from a given element
19:02:05 [timeless]
... not all events have an onfoo property
19:02:09 [timeless]
... so you can't detect it that way
19:02:21 [timeless]
... so the only way to detect it is to sit around and wait for the user to start typing
19:03:02 [timeless]
anne: IME events probably have an interface you can detect
19:03:16 [timeless]
weinig: it's probably a good strategy to ensure there's a clean update path
19:03:59 [timeless]
rniwa: how do you handle the case where a browse in v.N implements API, and it's broken
19:04:05 [timeless]
... and they fix it in v.N+1
19:04:10 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webapps
19:04:14 [timeless]
sicking: i think the best solution is to have tests earlier
19:04:23 [timeless]
shepazu: testing is the solution
19:04:42 [timeless]
chaals: testing minimizes the occurrence of that anyway
19:04:48 [timeless]
... but bugs happen
19:05:06 [timeless]
... alternatively, if you know of a specific broken implementation
19:05:19 [timeless]
... sniff for the particular browser on the particular device
19:05:26 [timeless]
... Ice Wind 7 on Android phone
19:05:30 [timeless]
... I know thing X is broken
19:05:37 [timeless]
... if you claim to be it, we'll do something else with you
19:05:43 [shepazu]
RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight
19:06:01 [timeless]
... there's the other version of sniffing
19:06:11 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
19:06:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
19:06:23 [plh]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
19:06:31 [timeless]
... where you assume that Browser X will never have that
19:06:37 [timeless]
... we need to take that site out back and shoot it
19:06:49 [timeless]
... the goal is to minimize useragent detection
19:06:55 [timeless]
... some significant portion will be done by idiots
19:06:58 [timeless]
... and will be done badly
19:07:47 [timeless]
chaals: do we need a formal resolution?
19:08:01 [timeless]
... my proposed resolution is LUNCH
19:08:11 [paul_irish]
regardless of how early testing is introduced, developers cannot embed a portion of the conformance testing suite into their apps. we need a published technique to feature detect localStorage, geolocation, etc etc.
19:08:14 [timeless]
weinig: a proposed resolution is to be more careful to make it easy to feature detect
19:08:27 [timeless]
chaals: my proposed resolution is Don't do That
19:08:38 [timeless]
... We recognize it is a problem for specs
19:08:44 [timeless]
... if you can't feature detect reliably
19:08:49 [timeless]
... and leave it at that
19:09:02 [timeless]
adrianba: i'll liase with darobin to make sure it's in his document
19:09:43 [adrianba]
ACTION: adrianba to liaise with Robin to ensure feature detection is part of his API design document
19:09:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-661 - Liaise with Robin to ensure feature detection is part of his API design document [on Adrian Bateman - due 2012-05-09].
19:09:52 [timeless]
[ Lunch - resume at 1:15 ]
19:10:19 [Ms2ger]
paul_irish, the point was to prevent poisoning feature detection like Google does with input type=chrome, say
19:17:37 [tantek]
paul_irish, speaking of being "on the site", does Google have a equivalent to
19:20:31 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webapps
19:23:29 [mattkelly]
mattkelly has joined #webapps
19:24:08 [Ms2ger]
chaals, oh, I thought that was ;)
19:25:30 [chaals]
s/chaals, oh, I thought that was
19:29:30 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #webapps
19:35:51 [Paul_Kinlan]
Paul_Kinlan has joined #webapps
19:40:33 [glenn]
glenn has joined #webapps
19:41:54 [Arno]
Arno has joined #webapps
20:20:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webapps
20:21:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webapps
20:21:35 [Arno]
Arno has joined #webapps
20:22:18 [rogerk]
rogerk has joined #webapps
20:22:53 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
20:24:19 [tross]
tross has joined #webapps
20:25:08 [jrossi1]
jrossi1 has joined #webapps
20:25:09 [abarsto]
abarsto has joined #webapps
20:26:26 [timeless]
Topic: Stabilizing Specifications
20:26:51 [timeless]
[ chaals explains tradeoffs between publishing early or never finally publishing
20:26:53 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:26:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
20:26:58 [timeless]
s/publishing/publishing ]/
20:27:14 [timeless]
chaals: I, as a chair, want to get stuff to REC
20:27:31 [timeless]
... I, as a AC rep, want to get good specs knowing where we want to go
20:27:37 [timeless]
q+ tantek
20:27:48 [timeless]
... so, Opera can't give too much resources
20:27:53 [Wonsuk]
Wonsuk has joined #webapps
20:28:00 [timeless]
anne: the main thing gating getting to REC quickly
20:28:11 [timeless]
... is requiring two implementations of everything and an exhaustive test suite
20:28:20 [timeless]
... so we know what the substantive issues are, and address those
20:28:20 [plh]
20:28:32 [timeless]
... and then we publish REC
20:28:45 [timeless]
... we still need to work out test suite + interop
20:28:56 [timeless]
... we could/should probably do LC every year/two years
20:29:03 [timeless]
... no major issues, publish snapshot
20:29:13 [timeless]
... the current process document requires a CR
20:29:22 [timeless]
... two interoperable is a group Req
20:29:28 [timeless]
... we could try to get creative
20:29:41 [MikeSmith]
+1 to anne's "Rec snapshot" proposal
20:29:43 [timeless]
ArtB: the w3 PP
20:29:47 [timeless]
ack tantek
20:29:59 [timeless]
tantek: So, the Opera sees more value in evolving the spec
20:30:12 [timeless]
... how much value do you see in the IPR values from REC publication?
20:30:29 [timeless]
chaals: as an Opera position, we see value in the IPR thing
20:30:51 [ArtB]
q+ what if the IP commitment was confirmed when a CR was published rather than when the REC is published
20:31:03 [timeless]
... how much value is there in getting something out
20:31:19 [timeless]
... of something getting into court in the intervening space
20:31:26 [timeless]
... if a REC never happens, then it's different
20:31:37 [timeless]
... Opera also delivers browsers to companies according to specifications
20:32:01 [timeless]
... if we deliver a statement of work saying "we'll deliver up to the latest at the delivery date"
20:32:14 [sicking]
20:32:20 [timeless]
... marketing and business can't accept an unspecified amount of work at a fixed cost
20:32:31 [timeless]
... we would like to see how important it is to other people
20:32:36 [timeless]
... one measure is, who is going to put up the work
20:32:50 [timeless]
tantek: if the REC is eventually going to come, that's semi equivalent for IPR
20:32:56 [Ms2ger]
q+ ArtB
20:32:59 [timeless]
... re: anne 's comment about skipping implementation and calling it a REC
20:33:02 [timeless]
... i disagree with that
20:33:16 [timeless]
... and think that's one thing that lended a loss of trust in W3C RECs
20:33:26 [timeless]
... e.g. no browser implemented it, but it's a REC
20:33:29 [shepazu]
20:33:38 [timeless]
... i'm opposed to something going to REC without interoperable Browser implementations
20:33:42 [timeless]
... otherwise, leave it in CR
20:33:46 [timeless]
... forever
20:33:54 [timeless]
anne: that doesn't address getting REC, so it doesn't work
20:34:03 [timeless]
tantek: chaals said it doesn't matter to Opera
20:34:05 [chaals]
ack pl
20:34:05 [timeless]
... per se
20:34:16 [timeless]
plh: what's the goal of this discussion?
20:34:21 [timeless]
... to provide input to AC?
20:34:28 [timeless]
chaals: no, it's to manage tension between
20:34:32 [timeless]
... getting to REC
20:34:39 [timeless]
... moving forward with new feature
20:34:43 [timeless]
20:34:52 [timeless]
... how do we manage the obligation with getting stability (REC)
20:35:11 [timeless]
... because at the moment, i don't think we do an especially good job
20:35:16 [timeless]
... getting to REC
20:35:27 [glenn]
20:35:37 [timeless]
plh: it's perfectly fine to go back to AC and say "given the current process, we can't do this"
20:35:44 [timeless]
... but we're bounded by the current process
20:35:48 [timeless]
20:35:56 [timeless]
... it's useful feedback to provide
20:36:18 [timeless]
plh: it says that "The WG SHOULD be able to provide 2 working interoperable implementations of each feature"
20:36:33 [timeless]
... it's a SHOULD, because some specifications don't have implementations
20:36:36 [timeless]
... like Guideliness
20:36:43 [timeless]
20:36:47 [ArtB]
-> Process Document and Candidate Recommendation
20:36:49 [timeless]
tantek: isn't that what NOTEs are for?
20:37:01 [ojan]
I've said this in person to many of you before, but I think we should do something very different from current practice. We should always be working on an unversioned "trunk" copy of the spec. Every *feature* in the spec is marked one of: stable, implementable, unstable. Every X months (e.g. 6 months) we fork the spec into three auto-generated copies. 1. The full spec, useful for people to bring
20:37:01 [ojan]
up IPR issues. 2. A copy of the spec with the unstable features stripped. (roughly equivalent to CR, browser vendors can implement these features unprefixed) 3. A copy with the unstable and implementable features stripped (roughly REC once there are 2 implementations + a test suite).
20:37:03 [timeless]
anne: once you create test suites, you start finding details
20:37:05 [chaals]
q+ to note that guidelines often *do* get implementations through the process.
20:37:19 [chaals]
ack sick
20:37:28 [timeless]
sicking: the main value of having something called a REC
20:37:33 [timeless]
... is there are a lot of authors that care about it
20:37:42 [timeless]
... that pay attention to things
20:37:50 [timeless]
... even if we claim we have interoperable implementations
20:37:55 [timeless]
... they're worried because we don't have RECs
20:38:02 [timeless]
... the current process is fairly bad
20:38:11 [timeless]
... that's why i'm pushing to get more things into REC
20:38:15 [timeless]
... so we can point to them
20:38:23 [tantek]
q+ to say that CR satisfies the desire for stability for implementers/authors
20:38:34 [timeless]
... this is a lot harder if authors want market share for those implementations as well
20:38:46 [timeless]
... the goal for most people in here is to get authors to use those specifications
20:38:52 [timeless]
... there is an incentive to make REC
20:38:58 [timeless]
20:39:00 [chaals]
ack ArtB
20:39:07 [plh]
20:39:17 [ArtB]
20:39:21 [ArtB]
The Working Group is not required to show that a technical report has two independent and interoperable implementations as part of a request to advance to Candidate Recommendation. However, the Working Group is encouraged to include a report of present and expected implementation as part of the request.
20:39:21 [ArtB]
20:40:13 [timeless]
glenn: is that the thing about CR
20:40:19 [timeless]
chaals: there's a thing in the process document
20:40:20 [chaals]
ack shepazu
20:40:24 [krisk]
20:40:35 [timeless]
shepazu: tantek raised a point around the value of interoperability
20:40:45 [timeless]
... there's an expectation that it's interoperable in browsers
20:40:50 [timeless]
... jQuery has just joined W3C
20:41:08 [timeless]
... would people consider a jQuery implementation of a specification as a pragmatic point for interop on our test suites?
20:41:19 [timeless]
... i think it does, i'd like to hear from people who think it shouldn't
20:41:22 [ArtB]
20:41:43 [chaals]
ack glenn
20:41:45 [timeless]
anne: it seems like a bad idea
20:41:58 [timeless]
glenn: Cox is hear because we want to see interoperable systems
20:42:06 [timeless]
... both on the authoring side and on the UA client side
20:42:15 [timeless]
... we're investing in W3C membership and time for me and others
20:42:21 [timeless]
... on the assumption we'll get some value out of that
20:42:27 [timeless]
... the value is Final REC and test suites
20:42:33 [timeless]
... the process of getting there is long and complicated
20:42:40 [timeless]
... we'd like to see it go faster wherever possible
20:42:48 [timeless]
... we'd like to volunteer our time, my time
20:42:55 [Ms2ger]
Explain why "the value is Final REC"
20:42:59 [timeless]
... a process which doesn't get us REC + test suites isn't worth our time
20:43:02 [chaals]
q+ ryosuke
20:43:15 [timeless]
... we do have the ability to define how to get there
20:43:20 [anne]
Ms2ger: something with a p
20:43:23 [timeless]
... but there should be something there
20:43:38 [chaals]
ack cha
20:43:38 [Zakim]
chaals, you wanted to note that guidelines often *do* get implementations through the process.
20:43:45 [timeless]
... improving the output in terms of timeliness and test suites
20:43:52 [timeless]
chaals: even guidelines when they go to REC
20:43:57 [timeless]
... get implementation
20:44:04 [Ms2ger]
(Also, has Cox contributed tests?)
20:44:09 [timeless]
... trying to get a guideline to REC before Team
20:44:21 [anne]
shepazu: the reason jQuery is a bad idea is because you can't actually use the specification directly, you'd also need to include a library, and given the state of the DOM and JavaScript, you probably cannot use the API directly even when you go to the length of including said library
20:44:21 [timeless]
... was given pushback to show that the guideline was picked up
20:44:30 [timeless]
... demonstrating that people understand how this worked
20:44:53 [timeless]
... what we want in a REC is things we don't think are going to change much
20:45:01 [timeless]
... people writing contracts based on long term things
20:45:13 [timeless]
... don't want to discover that in six month's time things have changed under them
20:45:19 [timeless]
... suck out the stable bits
20:45:22 [glenn]
cox has not yet contributed tests, but is prepared to accept a shared responsibility in doing so
20:45:28 [timeless]
... and keep on working the things that aren't stable
20:45:37 [timeless]
... we can identify the things that aren't stable
20:45:41 [timeless]
... - today
20:45:48 [timeless]
... we mark things as TBD
20:46:01 [timeless]
... if i take what glenn says, that we want a test suite
20:46:05 [shepazu]
anne, fair point, but on the other hand, JQuery works across all major browsers, while each browser only works across one browser (unless it's WebKit ^_^)
20:46:07 [timeless]
... it doesn't have to test every tiny detail
20:46:14 [timeless]
... we want to know which things are interoperable
20:46:20 [timeless]
... if you look at HTML5 as a pile
20:46:25 [timeless]
... the spec defines this big mountain
20:46:35 [timeless]
... but the implementation status is things not in the spec yet
20:46:41 [timeless]
... things in the spec that you can't use anywhere
20:46:48 [timeless]
... and a smaller section you can rely on anywhere forever
20:46:59 [timeless]
... the <p> will keep on being a <p> for longer than we live
20:47:07 [anne]
shepazu: independently implemented features help proving a standard is actually well written though
20:47:12 [timeless]
... you're not going to worry <p> into your web page
20:47:19 [timeless]
... some things shaking around, some people might not go there
20:47:38 [timeless]
... some people will put it (prefixed things) into my production system, because that's the way we do things
20:47:50 [timeless]
... stabilizing and saying these things in the edge cases aren't stable
20:47:55 [timeless]
... seems reasonable
20:48:02 [timeless]
... our process seems to be to stabilize every edge case
20:48:06 [shepazu]
anne, yes, but I'm not saying that jQuery should be the only implementation, just that it should be one of them, just as a single browser is one of them
20:48:14 [timeless]
... and whenever we find an edge case, and deciding we have to go back and work on the spec
20:48:17 [timeless]
... before everything else
20:48:19 [Ms2ger]
anne, or that the QA teams of the respective browsers are good enough at reverse engineering
20:48:21 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #webapps
20:48:25 [timeless]
... we do want to define everything else
20:48:33 [timeless]
... where the test suite is less comprehensive
20:48:43 [timeless]
... "we ship browsers which are perfect"
20:49:01 [timeless]
... at that level, the spec is the same
20:49:29 [bryan]
q+ to ask if the idea behind the core mobile web platform CG (identify the interoperable core and shells of interoperable features around it) is a practically useful way to side-step the REC issue?
20:49:32 [chaals]
ack art
20:49:47 [chaals]
ack tan
20:49:47 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to say that CR satisfies the desire for stability for implementers/authors
20:50:05 [anne]
Ms2ger: maha
20:50:09 [timeless]
tantek: i agree with sicking 's point that authors feel like they can depend on
20:50:16 [timeless]
... i don't think that incentive pushes toward CR
20:50:21 [timeless]
... i've found as an educator
20:50:25 [timeless]
... someone who does workshops on HTML5
20:50:34 [timeless]
... when specs reach CR, authors tend to just depend on them
20:50:47 [timeless]
anne: CR doesn't work for people who want to reference us
20:50:51 [timeless]
20:51:06 [timeless]
q+ anne to retaliate against tantek
20:51:23 [timeless]
tantek: i have experience with fulfilling the letter and spirit of CR
20:51:26 [timeless]
... in CSS2.1
20:51:38 [timeless]
... going back, i don't think anyone would want to go back and do that level of diligence ever again
20:51:49 [timeless]
... the edge cases we were having failures on
20:51:57 [timeless]
... we shouldn't have spent years going back and forth
20:52:06 [timeless]
anne: most of those problems will bite you back
20:52:09 [timeless]
20:52:10 [sicking]
20:52:13 [Ms2ger]
tantek, I agree, *that* level of diligence is insufficient
20:52:19 [timeless]
tantek: in practice, we left things undefined
20:52:24 [timeless]
... in CSS2.1
20:52:32 [timeless]
... i've yet to hear anyone say these things have hurt anyone
20:52:32 [chaals]
ack plh
20:52:38 [timeless]
... i think that's a group wisdom item
20:52:46 [anne]
edge cases bite browsers all the time
20:52:48 [timeless]
plh: i've been in this kind of discussion for 15 years
20:52:53 [anne]
and table layout is definitely one of them
20:52:55 [timeless]
... it was the DOM WG that recommended CR phase
20:53:09 [timeless]
... DOM1 and DOM2 and DOM3 were produced without much of a testsuite either
20:53:15 [timeless]
... but there are consequences of doing that
20:53:25 [timeless]
... when people talk about a testsuite, there's a lot of variation about what they mean by that
20:53:27 [Ms2ger]
DOM1 and 2 definitely have test suites
20:53:30 [timeless]
... we want a full test suite
20:53:35 [Ms2ger]
We run them on every build
20:53:36 [timeless]
... and we want to spend years writing it
20:53:45 [timeless]
... we shipped CSS2.1 with 9,000 tests
20:54:01 [chaals]
[/me wonders if it makes a difference whether there is an expectation of ongoing work or not...]
20:54:02 [timeless]
... and there are plenty of things that aren't tested, especially when you put HTML in the middle
20:54:11 [tantek]
anne, do you know of any specific table layout issues re: CSS 2.1 that have actually effected authors and/or browsers? (citation requested to specific issue)
20:54:23 [tantek]
(before CSS2.1 yes - plenty of table layout problems)
20:54:24 [Ms2ger]
tantek, seriously?
20:54:39 [timeless]
... at W3C, we're discussing hiring people on Staff to spend their entire time on Testing
20:54:41 [chaals]
ack kri
20:54:42 [tantek]
Ms2ger - remember, I said *CSS* table layout
20:54:46 [anne]
not having shrink-wrap and such defined is also a major problem for new CSS specs
20:54:49 [tantek]
not touching HTML legacy table layout
20:54:53 [tantek]
that's a much harder problem
20:54:57 [anne]
ask e.g. tab
20:55:02 [timeless]
krisk: i definitely don't want to go back to a model where we don't have test suites
20:55:11 [anne]
this is about HTML legacy table layout
20:55:11 [timeless]
... i think that leaves us with ambiguity
20:55:16 [anne]
that's what CSS ought to define
20:55:19 [timeless]
... i think some people like to make test cases on every edge case
20:55:20 [anne]
as HTML is defined in terms of CSS
20:55:23 [tantek]
anne, I'm content with Flexbox's approach to solving shrinkwrap etc.
20:55:24 [timeless]
... and i don't think that helps
20:55:31 [timeless]
... i think in WebApps, i think we're on the lean side
20:55:41 [timeless]
... Web Messaging is holding the spec up for Event Constructors
20:55:49 [timeless]
... i think there's a lot of value in Web Storage interop
20:55:52 [chaals]
[/me also still looking for where to get the resources to make Recs while technical editors are working on technical questions that are still unsolved]
20:55:56 [timeless]
... but looking at the test suite
20:56:11 [timeless]
... there's definitely a level base on pruning tests
20:56:11 [chaals]
ack ryo
20:56:22 [timeless]
rniwa: keeping trunk spec
20:56:27 [timeless]
... and forking for stabilization
20:56:29 [tantek]
I don't know of any authors that care about detailed description of HTML table layout - so I say it is something we can punt on (deprioritize)
20:56:32 [Ms2ger]
Note that Web Messaging isn't holding the spec up for Event Constructors, but because of the nullable types change to WebIDL
20:56:34 [timeless]
... i think it's ok to
20:56:43 [timeless]
... i don't think we can wait for the test suite for every detail
20:56:51 [timeless]
... eventually it'd be nice to test every edge case
20:56:57 [Ms2ger]
In particular, an error that was introduced in the conversion
20:56:57 [timeless]
... but forking for standardization
20:56:58 [anne]
tantek: this is not just about authors, it's about the health of the web platform and ease of entry for new players
20:57:03 [tantek]
there is much more useful/important things to work on in CSS than define legacy HTML table layout - ergo, it will likely never get done should never get done because there aren't infinite resources in CSS.
20:57:09 [anne]
tantek: and about not wasting QA resources * five
20:57:10 [timeless]
... we need to agree to put the other test cases in later
20:57:20 [Ms2ger]
tantek, [citation needed]
20:57:22 [anne]
20:57:32 [timeless]
bryan: any thoughts on the coremob CG
20:57:37 [timeless]
... taking pressure off?
20:57:42 [tantek]
anne - I sympathize with the ease of entry for new players - though it feels like that gets harder every year even just for well defined things, nevermind compat.
20:57:52 [tantek]
20:57:54 [timeless]
... when we did CoreMob inside WAC
20:57:57 [tantek]
see the list of specs there
20:57:58 [timeless]
... which covered on web standards
20:58:01 [tantek]
and priorities
20:58:03 [timeless]
... HTML and things around it
20:58:08 [chaals]
[tantek, IIRC we were using table layout for some stuff internally and it caused problems - but should we therefore stop CSS going forward, or get them to produce level X and keep working to solve that in level X+Y?]
20:58:11 [anne]
tantek: it's not made simpler by giving up on defining essential parts of the platform
20:58:15 [timeless]
... things we saw referenced by jQuery
20:58:22 [timeless]
... an indication that things were broadly supported
20:58:28 [timeless]
... we developed tests to ensure it worked
20:58:33 [chaals]
20:58:38 [timeless]
... that was a practical way to us,
20:58:42 [timeless]
... to identify what worked
20:58:48 [timeless]
... without getting in the way of the platform vendors
20:58:59 [timeless]
... when things show up in the platform, we added them to the common supported set
20:59:01 [tantek]
chaals - anyone (or org) that sees legacy HTML table layout as essential for being defined can propose such a module. no one in the current CSSWG does, otherwise they would have.
20:59:08 [timeless]
... does that help take the pressure off?
20:59:13 [chaals]
ack sick
20:59:16 [timeless]
... or does it solve something eles?
20:59:16 [chaals]
ack bry
20:59:16 [Zakim]
bryan, you wanted to ask if the idea behind the core mobile web platform CG (identify the interoperable core and shells of interoperable features around it) is a practically useful
20:59:18 [timeless]
20:59:19 [Zakim]
... way to side-step the REC issue?
20:59:21 [timeless]
... or nothing
20:59:31 [tantek]
or rather, other things are more important
20:59:32 [tantek]
by evidence that other things have been prioritized higher
20:59:35 [timeless]
sicking: i agree it's silly to hold Local Storage for Event Constructors
20:59:41 [timeless]
... we should aim for maximum interop
20:59:42 [Ms2ger]
tantek, Mozilla and Opera certainly do
20:59:44 [chaals]
[tantek: agree, re "if you want it, do some work".]
20:59:45 [timeless]
... long term for complete
20:59:51 [Ms2ger]
tantek, but it's a very hard problem
20:59:54 [timeless]
... taking tests that we all agree are non criticl
21:00:00 [timeless]
... and moving them somewhere
21:00:04 [timeless]
21:00:07 [tantek]
chaals, right, there is no structural barrier, in fact, the opposite, there is encouragement / welcoming of such efforts.
21:00:11 [timeless]
... and then show that we have enough to move forward
21:00:24 [timeless]
... dislike the idea of making the spec more ambiguous intentionally
21:00:30 [Ms2ger]
sicking, that claim about holding Web Storage for ctors is a lie, as I mentioned earlier
21:00:46 [timeless]
... if we move the undecided tests somewhere
21:00:53 [timeless]
... and then once we've addressed them
21:00:55 [tantek]
Ms2ger, over time, the unreliability of legacy HTML table layout means authors don't depend on it, means fewer sites (as actually used) depend on it, means it's less important for browsers etc.
21:00:56 [timeless]
... move them back
21:01:00 [anne]
tantek: maha, you mean like how things went down when I worked on some legacy aspects of the CSSOM?
21:01:01 [timeless]
... a way to mark tests as non critical
21:01:08 [timeless]
krisk: in spirit, the submission process did that
21:01:12 [timeless]
sicking: i don't think anyone disagrees
21:01:16 [Ms2ger]
tantek, that's nonsense
21:01:22 [timeless]
... that Event Constructors are normatively required by the spec
21:01:25 [timeless]
... they're valid tests
21:01:32 [timeless]
... i wouldn't like to mark them as No
21:01:37 [timeless]
... i'd prefer to move them to a place
21:01:42 [timeless]
... "we would like implementations to pass these"
21:01:47 [timeless]
... even to claim 100% compat
21:01:58 [anne]
tantek: yeah, agree with Ms2ger, that's some kind of fallacy people started believing in at some point, but it's not actually reality
21:02:01 [timeless]
... but "they aren't critical enough to block the spec"
21:02:11 [timeless]
... it tends to not be too hard to get implementations to fix them
21:02:19 [timeless]
... once they're in the right part of the release cycle
21:02:24 [tantek]
anne - no amount of process can stop a chair or specific individual from being out of order or for that matter, going against the said/explicit welcoming culture of a wg. I for one am still very upset about how you were treated.
21:02:27 [timeless]
... and once they have tests
21:02:34 [timeless]
rniwa: they should be normative?
21:02:38 [timeless]
sicking: the test suite isn't normative
21:02:48 [adrianba]
21:02:49 [chaals]
ack me
21:02:52 [timeless]
... but moving them to say "we don't require 2 passing implementations of this test in order to move to REC"
21:02:58 [anne]
tantek: in the worst case you get a split web, where some set of sites depend on one behavior and others on another; in the slightly less worse case you just all have to reverse engineer each other
21:03:13 [tantek]
q+ to mention optional/required features vs. one or more implementations.
21:03:44 [timeless]
chaals: if you want stuff
21:03:48 [timeless]
... one measure of you wanting stuff
21:03:52 [timeless]
... is doing work on it
21:04:04 [timeless]
... i'm encouraged to hear glenn say "Cox wants stable RECs"
21:04:14 [timeless]
... i'm not saying glenn should write XHR2 or IndexedDB
21:04:24 [timeless]
... is what ArtB 's done for the HTML-handoff specs
21:04:30 [timeless]
... take stable things and do the finishing process
21:04:38 [timeless]
... test suites is another thing
21:04:44 [timeless]
... bryan ran away after asking about coremob
21:04:48 [timeless]
... i'm quite disappointed about coremob
21:04:56 [timeless]
... the principal of looking at what devs care about
21:05:02 [timeless]
... and getting stability for that
21:05:08 [Ms2ger]
21:05:14 [sicking]
21:05:16 [timeless]
... if jQuery is shipping it to general developers
21:05:22 [timeless]
... then it's probably stable
21:05:39 [timeless]
... and the group should try to push that bit to REC
21:05:46 [timeless]
... the old model of W3C
21:05:54 [timeless]
... was a group would sit down, write a spec, then they'd disappear
21:06:04 [timeless]
... for HTML, CSS, SVG, the theory was a bit wooley
21:06:08 [timeless]
... the PP was based on that theory
21:06:12 [timeless]
... people certainly thought that
21:06:32 [timeless]
... if you know people are going to fix edge cases, solve pain points, add feature creep
21:06:40 [timeless]
... then maybe you know you'll have another version
21:06:45 [timeless]
... with more stuff, more bugs, but some old bugs fixed
21:06:50 [timeless]
... i'll repeat the question
21:07:03 [timeless]
... where do we get the resources of "do the finishing, do the stabilization"
21:07:13 [chaals]
ack tan
21:07:13 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to mention optional/required features vs. one or more implementations.
21:07:23 [timeless]
... people who care about it, measure how much they care by how much effort they put up to make it happen
21:07:24 [glenn]
21:07:44 [timeless]
tantek: sicking mentioned 2-impls and saying that maybe we can say 1 impl of an optional feature is sufficient
21:07:49 [timeless]
shepazu: i'm not a fan of optional features
21:07:56 [timeless]
tantek: it's a way to make progress
21:07:56 [chaals]
ack sick
21:08:25 [timeless]
sicking: we should be strict about what we're not blocking on
21:08:33 [ArtB]
21:08:42 [timeless]
... in prose people tend to make things easy to get wrong
21:08:55 [timeless]
... we should be ok with being off by 2px in CSS
21:09:03 [chaals]
21:09:07 [timeless]
... we should be more conservative than jQuery depends on it
21:09:13 [timeless]
anne: if you do that, we won't get RECs faster
21:09:21 [timeless]
sicking: Local Storage we could be done
21:09:25 [timeless]
anne: XHR wouldn't
21:10:09 [timeless]
sicking: i'm fine with moving the spec where people are failing the test
21:10:17 [chaals]
ack glenn
21:10:21 [timeless]
glenn: on testing
21:10:25 [smaug_]
(what is an optional feature o_O)
21:10:32 [timeless]
... i think it's useful to recognize that the audience for the test
21:10:36 [timeless]
... is the w3c process
21:10:44 [timeless]
... it's only technically for w3c exit requirements
21:10:50 [timeless]
... it isn't for establishing compliance
21:10:52 [timeless]
... or interop
21:10:57 [timeless]
... that isn't its express purpose
21:11:04 [timeless]
... it's just to satisfy the process requirement
21:11:05 [shepazu]
21:11:28 [timeless]
... i can see our scope and target changing over time
21:11:36 [chaals]
[There are tradeoffs. By leaving stuff undefined we allow legacy complexity to creep in - but we do that by not stabilising the spec too, because people just implement against "what works". I think it is a judgement issue in the end, so I am hoping to get a bit more shared understanding and guidance on how to make that call]
21:11:37 [timeless]
... tests aren't part of the technical deliverables per the Processs
21:11:43 [timeless]
... they aren't cast in concrete like a REC
21:11:47 [chaals]
21:11:47 [timeless]
... they can change at any time
21:11:51 [timeless]
... they can start small and gro
21:11:54 [timeless]
21:12:47 [chaals]
shepazu: I think the expectations of the group are higher than the process requires, and I think we should be driving towards interoperability above the worst possible acceptable
21:12:53 [chaals]
scribe: chaals
21:13:16 [chaals]
glenn: We want the bigger picture. Dunno if W3C process is ideal - there is no compliance testing for example.
21:13:18 [chaals]
ack art
21:14:18 [shepazu]
21:14:30 [chaals]
ArtB: Broad IP commitment is important to Nokia. We're happy to look at changes to the process, but we want that to stay. Being more selective about test cases for CR makes a lot of sense. What's the minimalist/core set - I like that idea and it wouldn't stop us adding more test cases to show what still needs work and maybe a rev on the spec.
21:14:49 [chaals]
... if we apply this to web storage, testing is somewhat make-work if everyone has broadly deployed it.
21:15:07 [chaals]
... we could just agree that where we have 4 implementations, we can make that the core tests
21:15:31 [chaals]
krisk: agree. The test suite results make it look like web storage is unusable, but that isn't reality - people *do* use it.
21:16:04 [chaals]
anne: If you look at it from QA because a site is breaking, then you see a different picture. Now we have to reverse engineer to deal around the lgacy complexity that got allowed to creep in.
21:16:27 [chaals]
krisk: to a certain extent we make the problems for ourselves.
21:16:38 [chaals]
zakim, close the queue
21:16:38 [Zakim]
ok, chaals, the speaker queue is closed
21:17:29 [chaals]
... we didn't change the spec to include something nobody will implement. There are things that we can punt to v2 but instead we slow down by circling where we are.
21:17:44 [sicking]
21:18:12 [chaals]
zakim, open queue
21:18:12 [Zakim]
ok, chaals, the speaker queue is open
21:18:17 [sicking]
21:18:26 [chaals]
shepazu: I think we haven't spent as much time as I would like on when we do the testing.
21:19:02 [chaals]
... people are implementing early on in the spec process. If we want to set tests for stable things early on in development, we would have an improved asymptotic approach to interop, that would help us in cr as well.
21:19:13 [chaals]
... start early, test often.
21:19:15 [chaals]
ack she
21:19:19 [chaals]
ack sick
21:19:43 [chaals]
sicking: my proposal of moving tests to non-required is to avoid habing to build a v2 so soon.
21:20:01 [chaals]
... move the tests back in means we can avoid doing double versions of specs.
21:20:04 [tantek]
[then what's the point of moving the spec forward? if not to communicate an expectation of dependability on implementations?]
21:20:26 [chaals]
[scribe notes that Anne pointed out again that maintaining two versions of a spec has a real cost in complicating the work of developing it]
21:21:02 [chaals]
sicking: to tantek: Very few people are going to use the features. They are not optional, they are just less central to the core usage - which happens in all specs where some things are more important than others.
21:21:11 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:21:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
21:21:31 [chaals]
tantek: there are two harms I have seen. 1: a new implementor gets to a bit that hadn't been done before and discovers that you can't implement the spec.
21:21:44 [chaals]
... CSS 2 has examples.
21:22:18 [chaals]
sicking: if CSS2 had a good comprehensive test suite you would have moved a large chunk of tests to optional - and then you would say "wait, if there are that many optional things maybe we don't have the right spec for what matters yet"
21:23:11 [chaals]
... nobody doubts event constructors can be implemented. If a new implementor comes, they won't get stuck.
21:23:28 [chaals]
tantek: writing the test often showed that the spec was broken. we are improving - but not perfect.
21:25:28 [tantek]
ArtB - CSS 2.1 has quite good interop, without a certification program ;)
21:25:44 [chaals]
... 2nd harm. The expectation of someone who reads the spec is that it works. If they try it and some things don't work, they get disappointed and decide the whole spec is rubbish.
22:02:56 [timeless]
Topic: Testing
22:05:15 [abarsto]
abarsto has joined #webapps
22:05:31 [timeless]
rniwa: I like to write tests
22:05:46 [timeless]
... but it's hard for me to figure out which part of a spec needs tests
22:05:48 [timeless]
... or has tests
22:05:54 [timeless]
... which part of a spec needs testing
22:05:58 [timeless]
... [Coverage]
22:06:06 [timeless]
... I encourage my colleagues and myself to write tests
22:06:15 [timeless]
... but i don't have 4 hours to figure out which tests test which items
22:06:27 [timeless]
... if i remember correctly, each test has a link to the section of the spec
22:06:36 [timeless]
... if we have a tool that could go through the tests
22:06:52 [timeless]
... the CSS Tool called "Shepard" (by plinns)
22:06:55 [plh]
22:06:59 [timeless]
... that lets you annotate the CSS spec
22:07:06 [timeless]
... to show you which tests exist for a section
22:07:16 [timeless]
... and to go from the tests to the parts of the spec
22:07:41 [bryan]
22:07:44 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #webapps
22:07:46 [timeless]
ack plh
22:07:50 [chaals]
i/... the CSS/shepazu:
22:08:03 [timeless]
plh: In practice, the CSS WG has the highest bar
22:08:11 [timeless]
until you put the metadata, they won't accept their tests
22:08:26 [timeless]
s/until/... until/
22:08:30 [rniwa]
22:08:31 [anne]
I think it would be good if we had an annotation system for the specification. If we had that, we could use that to annotate tests. Hixie has written such software for the WHATWG. I'm sure he's willing to share it and have someone make it usable for more than one specification
22:08:33 [timeless]
... this is one of those tradeoffs you have to make
22:08:59 [anne]
^^ is what I'd say if I put myself on the queue
22:09:05 [timeless]
... you saw the w3c test results, it's a modified version of Shepard on the w3c server
22:09:17 [tantek_]
in case it is helpful:
22:09:18 [timeless]
... we're still trying to get upstream changes from plinns
22:09:31 [timeless]
... there are two features that we don't have, that he isn't interested in implemented
22:09:37 [timeless]
22:09:41 [timeless]
... it's written in PHP
22:09:43 [timeless]
... some people donm
22:09:44 [ArtB]
-> A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Requirements
22:09:48 [timeless]
s/donm/don't like php/
22:09:57 [tantek_]
in particular, here is the meta data that is requested for each test:
22:09:58 [tantek_]
<link rel="author" title="NAME_OF_AUTHOR" href="mailto:EMAIL OR http://CONTACT_PAGE">
22:09:58 [tantek_]
<link rel="help" href="RELEVANT_SPEC_SECTION">
22:09:58 [tantek_]
<meta name="flags" content="TOKENS">
22:09:58 [tantek_]
<meta name="assert" content="TEST ASSERTION">
22:10:03 [timeless]
... if someone came along w/ a Node.js framework based system, we'd take it
22:10:03 [MikeSmith]
22:10:14 [chaals]
ack bry
22:10:16 [bryan]
I've been working on a tool to help spec authors identify the distinct testable assertions in their specs. An quick/dirty demo version is at
22:10:18 [timeless]
krisk: [=> rniwa ] you could ask the testing list
22:10:49 [timeless]
bryan: I've started looking at specs across w3 to show how it could be done
22:11:08 [timeless]
... easy ways to navigate from tests to spec
22:11:13 [timeless]
... annotating the spec with metadata
22:11:25 [timeless]
... i talked with darobin about updating ReSpec.js to incorporate this
22:11:42 [timeless]
... if you go to the tool
22:11:47 [timeless]
... you can click a spec
22:11:51 [timeless]
... and it pulls out the testable statements
22:11:52 [tantek_]
as an spec editor, my first reaction is, this is too much work
22:11:55 [timeless]
... one by one
22:11:59 [tantek_]
22:12:39 [plh]
22:12:41 [plh]
22:12:54 [timeless]
... at the top is the list of testable assertions
22:13:04 [timeless]
... it's useful for structuring tests
22:13:08 [timeless]
plh: it's pretty limiting
22:13:33 [tantek]
q+ to say this spec markup just moves the problem from one rare resource (test authors) to an even *rarer* resource (spec editors)
22:13:37 [timeless]
... some things may not have a MUST
22:13:42 [timeless]
bryan: in order to test things
22:13:52 [plh]
22:13:52 [timeless]
... you need to be rigorous in terms of how you describe them
22:13:58 [timeless]
... if it's difficult to pull them out
22:14:08 [timeless]
... i don't think that's easy for the people to write the tests
22:14:18 [timeless]
... maybe people need clearer statements to decide what to test
22:14:28 [chaals]
ack mi
22:14:36 [ArtB]
ACTION: barstow make sure all of WebApps' new Editors are at least aware of
22:14:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-662 - Make sure all of WebApps' new Editors are at least aware of [on Arthur Barstow - due 2012-05-09].
22:14:37 [timeless]
rniwa: I agree with your statement
22:14:49 [timeless]
... if we have thousands of tests
22:14:54 [timeless]
... it's had for me to figure out
22:15:03 [timeless]
... at some point it doesn't scale well
22:15:26 [ArtB]
ACTION: bryan seriously consider using in Push Events spec
22:15:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-663 - Seriously consider using in Push Events spec [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2012-05-09].
22:15:32 [timeless]
... Ideally, as a test author, i'd just like to go to one page
22:15:42 [timeless]
... and have it tell me which part of the test needs tests
22:15:47 [timeless]
... and which part of the section
22:15:53 [timeless]
shepazu: and you're writing something to do this?
22:16:00 [timeless]
rniwa: it's hard for me to figure out which part of the spec to write for
22:16:05 [timeless]
... as is, i'd have to know all tests
22:16:12 [timeless]
... in WebKit, for regression tests, it's easy
22:16:29 [timeless]
... you just have a testcase, because if you had a test, we'd have failed and seen and fixed the bug
22:16:33 [timeless]
... but for conformance tests
22:16:36 [timeless]
... it's unclear
22:16:39 [chaals]
ack tan
22:16:39 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to say this spec markup just moves the problem from one rare resource (test authors) to an even *rarer* resource (spec editors)
22:17:05 [timeless]
tantek: i don't think putting the burden of explicit markup into the spec is a good idea
22:17:09 [chaals]
q+ to disagree with tantek...
22:17:12 [timeless]
... i think from the resource perspective, it's the complete wrong idea
22:17:26 [timeless]
... you're moving the burden from test authors to spec authors
22:17:31 [timeless]
... and spec authors are a rarer resource
22:17:39 [timeless]
... if anything, you should move it the other way, or to machines
22:17:44 [timeless]
... there are ways to write better specs
22:17:49 [timeless]
... writing testable assertions
22:17:54 [timeless]
... but writing markup is a mistake
22:18:07 [timeless]
... it should be possible to interpret specs
22:18:14 [tantek_]
22:18:21 [timeless]
... it's what MS did for the HTML4 WG in 2002
22:18:31 [timeless]
... we documented how we generated them
22:18:38 [bryan]
q+ to note that avoiding authors to markup tests is the intent of developing tools that automatically do this, and help the authors to better structure their normative statements for clarity to testers.
22:18:48 [timeless]
... infamously it was claimed there were no testable assertions
22:18:52 [timeless]
... we found plenty
22:19:02 [timeless]
... it was plh who said the CSS WG had strict metadata requirements
22:19:03 [tantek_]
22:19:08 [MikeSmith]
22:19:11 [MikeSmith]
22:19:26 [timeless]
s||-">|-> CSS Test Format Requirements (metadata)|
22:19:32 [timeless]
... the requirements are pretty minimal
22:19:55 [chaals]
ack mi
22:20:07 [chaals]
ack rni
22:20:28 [timeless]
> <link rel="author" title="NAME_OF_AUTHOR" href="mailto:EMAIL OR http://CONTACT_PAGE"/>
22:20:28 [timeless]
> <link rel="help" href="RELEVANT_SPEC_SECTION"/>
22:20:52 [timeless]
tantek: those two lines aren't much effort
22:21:04 [timeless]
... and from that you can generate a lot of stuff
22:21:11 [timeless]
ack chaals
22:21:11 [Zakim]
chaals, you wanted to disagree with tantek...
22:21:27 [timeless]
chaals: i agree that you don't want to make this monstrous pile of work for spec editors
22:21:36 [timeless]
... when i write specs internally, i write "MUST" and put a class on it
22:21:44 [timeless]
... using a WYSIWYG editor, that's a trivial operation
22:21:51 [timeless]
... and just that, it's pretty easy to do
22:22:00 [timeless]
... i find that helpful, as a spec author
22:22:14 [timeless]
... i can say "oh, this says everything, but the bit that really matters"
22:22:19 [timeless]
... you need an easy to use extractor
22:22:35 [timeless]
... if i had to spend hours going through the markup, i wouldn't do it
22:22:41 [timeless]
... as shepazu says, it isn't busy work
22:22:54 [timeless]
... but i can know my spec is better than what you expect from me
22:22:57 [chaals]
ack bry
22:22:57 [Zakim]
bryan, you wanted to note that avoiding authors to markup tests is the intent of developing tools that automatically do this, and help the authors to better structure their
22:23:01 [Zakim]
... normative statements for clarity to testers.
22:23:27 [timeless]
bryan: we should shoot for tools that do stuff automatically
22:23:31 [timeless]
... even add markup
22:23:39 [timeless]
... editors need to be ok with their specs being augmented
22:23:43 [timeless]
... i suggested in DAP
22:23:43 [chaals]
q+ to channel anne
22:23:48 [timeless]
... maybe members could support the editors
22:23:54 [timeless]
... who identify testability of a spec
22:23:59 [timeless]
... and actually manually add those things
22:24:08 [anne]
22:24:13 [timeless]
... so people can focus on different things concurrently
22:24:27 [chaals]
q- later
22:24:29 [timeless]
... i don't want to add extra work for spec editors
22:24:38 [timeless]
[ Spec editors are ... ... delicate flowers ]
22:24:49 [timeless]
anne: i mentioned on irc, we should have the whatwg annotation system in W3C
22:24:56 [timeless]
... it allows most people to add annotations
22:25:01 [bryan]
one other thing I suggested in DAP was that editors could have the assistance of members focused on the testability of the spec, and add annotations classes etc, working alongside the spec editors.
22:25:04 [timeless]
... you can add notes, tests, ...
22:25:09 [rniwa]
22:25:10 [tantek_]
22:25:16 [timeless]
... this feature isn't implemented, it's stable, it's fairly broken, ...
22:25:19 [timeless]
ack anne
22:25:21 [tantek_]
to documentation of whatwg annotation system?
22:25:31 [timeless]
... it's disconnected from the specification
22:25:34 [plh]
is it ?
22:25:36 [timeless]
... but they're displayed together
22:25:43 [chaals]
q- later
22:25:59 [timeless]
... it works broadly
22:26:04 [timeless]
... you can file bugs from it
22:27:45 [timeless]
plh: is it documented?
22:27:54 [timeless]
anne: i think the code is proprietary from Hixie
22:27:54 [DanD]
DanD has joined #webapps
22:27:58 [timeless]
... i think he could put it somewhere
22:28:09 [timeless]
anne: i don't think there's a complete description
22:29:12 [timeless]
22:29:18 [timeless]
The requested URL /tests/html5/global-attributes/reftests/style-01.html was not found on this server.
22:29:18 [timeless]
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
22:29:23 [timeless]
[ Laughter ]
22:30:49 [tantek_]
ms2ger - we're looking at some of your HTML5 tests
22:30:51 [chaals]
ack rni
22:31:01 [timeless]
rniwa: it would be nice if we had a dashboard
22:31:08 [timeless]
... showing how many tests per section of the spec
22:31:15 [timeless]
... showing how many sections we have in a test
22:31:27 [tantek_]
or maybe test density
22:31:34 [tantek_]
like tests per 1000 characters ;)
22:31:35 [timeless]
... @TPAC, I had trouble observing all the information needed for a test
22:31:46 [timeless]
... it'd be nice for a 5 yo. to look at a wiki and write a test
22:31:53 [tantek_]
+1 on using wikis
22:32:02 [plh]
-> Guidelines for Authoring tests
22:32:03 [tantek_]
for collaboratively writing / improving tests
22:32:38 [chaals]
ack me
22:32:38 [Zakim]
chaals, you wanted to channel anne
22:32:49 [timeless]
chaals: i wanted to channel anne , but he channeled himself
22:32:50 [krisk]
correct link ->
22:32:55 [timeless]
... we'd like to have a Pony
22:33:02 [timeless]
... free beer at the start of every meeting
22:33:03 [krisk]
..and IE passes this test just fine
22:33:05 [timeless]
... and some tools
22:33:24 [timeless]
... any volunteer to ask Hixie about borrowing his code?
22:33:34 [timeless]
... rniwa, you look busy
22:33:42 [timeless]
rniwa: i'm talking to Hixie now
22:34:00 [krisk]
The list is a good spot to ask questions e.g.
22:34:10 [timeless]
[ Chrome and Safari both fail the reftest, nightly and ie9x64 pass - ]
22:34:21 [timeless]
chaals: anything else we should talk about?
22:34:29 [timeless]
... do we need documentation for test harnesses?
22:34:32 [rniwa]
Ian says he can open-source and let anyone use it.
22:34:33 [timeless]
22:34:37 [tantek]
q+ to mention Restyle in the context of testability / test suite writing
22:34:46 [chaals]
[sweet. thanks Ian]
22:34:53 [rniwa]
who should contact Ian about that?
22:34:55 [timeless]
krisk: in my experience, browser vendors create better tests when they start implementing features
22:35:06 [chaals]
[/me wonders how conceptually different it is from Annotea]
22:35:09 [timeless]
... there is wiki information on a bunch of that stuff
22:35:20 [timeless]
... there's someone from korea who came out of the blue
22:35:39 [timeless]
... if you aren't on the list <>, it's harder
22:35:53 [timeless]
chaals: I suggest we close the topic
22:36:15 [tantek_]
22:36:16 [timeless]
tantek: i want to suggest the Spec ReStyle effort at W3
22:36:30 [timeless]
s||-> Spec ReStyle effort at W3|
22:36:38 [timeless]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:36:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate timeless
22:37:03 [timeless]
Topic: Meetings
22:37:11 [timeless]
paulc: I had a simple observation
22:37:18 [timeless]
... the HTML WG is meeting tomorrow and the next day
22:37:30 [timeless]
... and we expect the next opportunity is TPAC in Fall
22:37:42 [timeless]
... as Co-chair at the HTML WG, I proposed we not overlap
22:37:52 [timeless]
... and WebApps is MT and HTML is ThF
22:38:04 [timeless]
... if WebApps wants to go ThF, we could flip that around
22:38:08 [timeless]
... but we should be intentional about this
22:38:18 [timeless]
ArtB: chaals responding MT and said the same thing
22:38:35 [timeless]
paulc: ok, so both WGs can make independent decisions about going to TPAC
22:38:46 [timeless]
chaals: we've done that explicitly, more or less deliberately
22:38:52 [timeless]
... this group has only met @TPAC
22:38:59 [timeless]
... for a number of years
22:39:16 [timeless]
... TPAC has helped, 40-50 people
22:39:27 [timeless]
... TPAC is hard work
22:39:34 [timeless]
... it's the meeting where people are present
22:39:41 [timeless]
... HTML, SVG, CSS, Audio, etc.
22:39:48 [timeless]
... I believe we should keep going there
22:39:51 [timeless]
... it's worth going there
22:39:59 [timeless]
... is there anyone who think we shouldn't go there?
22:40:06 [timeless]
ArtB: it's in our charter
22:40:10 [timeless]
chaals: we could ignore our charter
22:40:20 [timeless]
... we started talking about it months ago
22:40:28 [timeless]
... how many people will go this year?
22:40:36 [timeless]
ArtB: who isn't planning to go?
22:40:53 [timeless]
[ Essentially no hands ]
22:41:50 [ArtB]
-> Face-to-face: we will meet during the W3C's annual Technical Plenary week
22:42:15 [timeless]
chaals: if we did a meeting next time in the US at this time of the year
22:42:19 [timeless]
... who is unlikely to go?
22:42:29 [timeless]
[ no serious hands ]
22:42:38 [timeless]
chaals: if we had a meeting outside the US, who is unlikely to go?
22:42:53 [timeless]
[ no hands ]
22:42:59 [timeless]
chaals: excellent, we'll have a meeting in ...
22:43:51 [timeless]
MikeSmith: what i'm looking at now is the HTML5 bug tracker
22:43:56 [timeless]
... that shows the state of my life
22:44:09 [timeless]
chaals: is there a better way to do this meeting
22:44:16 [timeless]
... than to do this meeting together?
22:44:24 [timeless]
... other than having widgets as a split
22:44:32 [timeless]
shepazu: this was effectively an unconference
22:44:37 [timeless]
... i didn't hear any exceptions
22:45:07 [timeless]
chaals: tpac with 60 people in the room could be painful
22:45:13 [timeless]
ArtB: we could say no to observers
22:45:20 [timeless]
Josh_Soref: you'll lose the scribe
22:45:31 [timeless]
shepazu: that's a big difference
22:45:39 [timeless]
adrianba: i'd support beer in the requirements
22:46:10 [timeless]
chaals: so, this will be the way we'll work then
22:46:23 [timeless]
ArtB: so paulc, when will you make the decision on TPAC?
22:46:34 [timeless]
paulc: the WG has always sent out a we'll go
22:46:40 [timeless]
... and there has never been a respose
22:46:43 [timeless]
... we'll ask tomorrow
22:46:48 [timeless]
... and ask for a response on friday
22:46:57 [timeless]
... i don't know how many of the members here have overlap
22:47:03 [timeless]
... we're trying to get to REC
22:47:09 [timeless]
... there's pressure on W3C to get an HTML5 REC
22:47:15 [timeless]
... using F2F time to get REC makes sense
22:47:19 [timeless]
... we'll see what they say
22:48:11 [timeless]
chaals: I apologize to paulc about our unexpected efficiency
22:48:23 [timeless]
[ The meeting room was extended to 6pm ]
22:49:06 [timeless]
[ Break until 4pm ]
22:59:31 [abarsto]
abarsto has joined #webapps
22:59:50 [timeless]
Topic: Warnings for old DOM Specifications
22:59:59 [ArtB]
-> Msger's Proposals
23:00:26 [ArtB]
-> Bjoern's comments
23:00:36 [smaug_]
next TPAC will be on the better side of the world?
23:02:45 [anne]
smaug_: France I think
23:03:06 [ArtB]
-> DOM Level 2 Views Warning
23:03:06 [timeless]
chaals: warnings for old DOM specifications
23:03:08 [timeless]
... and others
23:03:17 [timeless]
... it is generally believed that, e.g. DOM2 Events
23:03:18 [anne]
smaug_: so if by better you mean non-US, yes
23:03:20 [timeless]
... is obsolete
23:03:26 [timeless]
... and probably not the best reference
23:03:29 [smaug_]
ok, thanks
23:03:32 [timeless]
... if you're looking for a DOM Events specification
23:03:54 [timeless]
... two questions:
23:03:57 [timeless]
... what should we do
23:04:01 [timeless]
... what should it say?
23:04:16 [timeless]
... for people who look for things to be shifted to ISO
23:04:25 [timeless]
... some people say people look for things that work
23:04:31 [timeless]
... we had a proposal to do this
23:04:36 [timeless]
... we got an email from bjorn
23:04:51 [timeless]
23:05:33 [timeless]
... identifying technicalities
23:05:38 [timeless]
ArtB: he objects to
23:05:47 [timeless]
... the pointer to the replacement doc being an ED
23:05:53 [timeless]
... he finds that not acceptable
23:06:00 [timeless]
... if we were to point to a WIP
23:06:03 [timeless]
... it should be a /TR/
23:06:12 [adrianba]
23:06:18 [timeless]
... because an ED by definition is constantly changing
23:06:20 [tantek]
23:06:27 [timeless]
... the rest of his comments were nits about specific text
23:06:32 [timeless]
23:06:55 [timeless]
ack adrianba
23:07:03 [timeless]
adrianba: i can't talk a lot about this
23:07:11 [timeless]
... MS has regulatory requirements around W3 RECs
23:07:24 [timeless]
... a note that suggesting you shouldn't read the document would be a problem for us
23:07:35 [timeless]
... however, a note saying the document isn't actively being maintained
23:07:43 [timeless]
... with a pointer to something being actively maintained
23:07:46 [timeless]
... would be acceptable
23:07:55 [timeless]
paulc: when we discussed this in the HTML WG
23:08:01 [timeless]
... i had a talk with Ian Jacobs
23:08:09 [timeless]
... when they redid the w3 web site
23:08:13 [anne]
Example of where this is done today:
23:08:14 [timeless]
... they put the oldest specs at the top
23:08:20 [timeless]
... the underlying cause of this
23:08:29 [timeless]
q+ chaals
23:08:36 [timeless]
... is that you see the old specs
23:08:39 [adrianba]
s/something being/something describing what is/
23:08:52 [timeless]
... I'm working with IanJ to improve this
23:09:02 [timeless]
... in particular, it includes XHTML in the HTML specs
23:09:09 [timeless]
... one of the underlying causes here
23:09:22 [timeless]
... is that people do this search
23:09:33 [timeless]
... and it fills their screen
23:09:37 [timeless]
... and you don't even see DOM4
23:09:45 [timeless]
... some of us are working on the underlying cause
23:09:47 [timeless]
23:09:50 [timeless]
23:09:57 [timeless]
s/ack //
23:09:58 [timeless]
ack ch
23:10:05 [timeless]
chaals: there are regulatory problems
23:10:07 [timeless]
... other things
23:10:20 [timeless]
... If you go to DOM0, or DOM4, or DOM3E, or DOM2E
23:10:32 [timeless]
... what we have is "This version, latest version, previous version"
23:10:41 [timeless]
... we probably need something more intelligent
23:10:45 [timeless]
... a bit of wordsmithing to do
23:11:32 [timeless]
Josh_Soref: adrianba, are these a problem for MS?
23:11:35 [timeless]
adrianba: it isn't my problem
23:11:39 [timeless]
23:11:50 [timeless]
... my preference is a link to a page that lays out the status of the dom specifications
23:12:23 [timeless]
ArtB: so, the last sentence could be tweaked
23:12:28 [timeless]
... a pointer to a wiki doc?
23:12:31 [tantek_]
how about start with ?
23:12:43 [timeless]
chaals: DOM4 isn't the only relevant spec
23:12:57 [timeless]
... DOM3E has said it doesn't want to point to DOM4
23:13:24 [tantek_]
and here's a stub, feel free to contribute:
23:13:56 [timeless]
anne: there was a CfC
23:13:59 [timeless]
... it passed
23:14:03 [timeless]
chaals: no, it didn't pass
23:14:12 [timeless]
... no mail from Chairs
23:14:40 [tantek_]
oh look, there was a already, now redirected to that.
23:15:34 [timeless]
Josh_Soref: adrianba, is this better?
23:15:35 [timeless]
adrianba: yes
23:15:37 [chaals]
chaals has joined #webapps
23:16:10 [timeless]
Josh_Soref: my preference is for this, since I don't want to bikeshed dom4 => dom5 references when we finish DOM4
23:16:47 [magnus]
magnus has joined #webapps
23:17:52 [timeless]
Josh_Soref: change the last sentence to "Please see [wiki/[Category]] for the status of ..."
23:18:05 [timeless]
chaals: thank you very much to paulc, Microsoft for hosting
23:18:10 [timeless]
[ Applause ]
23:18:17 [timeless]
chaals: thanks to Josh_Soref for scribing
23:18:19 [timeless]
[ Applause ]
23:18:29 [timeless]
chaals: it takes a special person to scribe a two day meeting
23:18:38 [timeless]
... where's the beer?
23:18:45 [shepazu]
s/special person/special sort of person/
23:19:32 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webapps
23:19:54 [tantek_]
23:20:00 [tantek_]
1010 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025 | 650-327-0830
23:20:22 [timeless]
[ Adjourned ]
23:20:49 [timeless]
RRSAgent, make minutes
23:20:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate timeless
23:21:02 [timeless]
trackbot, end meeting
23:21:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
23:21:02 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
23:21:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
23:21:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
23:21:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
23:21:11 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
23:21:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: adrianba to liaise with Robin to ensure feature detection is part of his API design document [1]
23:21:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:21:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: barstow make sure all of WebApps' new Editors are at least aware of [2]
23:21:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:21:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bryan seriously consider using in Push Events spec [3]
23:21:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in