16:55:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webdriver
16:55:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-irc
16:55:59 <ato> Excellent question!
16:56:01 <ato> https://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
16:56:10 <ato> Meeting: WebDriver F2F meeting July 2016
16:56:15 <ato> RRSAgent: draft
16:56:15 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft', ato.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:56:36 <ato> RRSAgent: listen
16:56:44 <ato> RRSAgent: Meeting: WebDriver F2F meeting July 2016
16:56:44 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'Meeting: WebDriver F2F meeting July 2016', ato.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:56:50 <ato> Meeting: WebDriver F2F meeting July 2016
16:56:55 <ato> RRSAgent: draft
16:56:55 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft', ato.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:57:13 <ato> RRSAgent, where am i?
16:57:13 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-irc#T16-57-13
16:57:31 <ato> RRSAgent: draft minutes
16:57:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html ato
16:58:41 <ato> MikeSmith: Why would I not have access to https://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html,access?
16:59:05 <ato> RRSAgent: bookmark
16:59:05 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-irc#T16-59-05
17:00:11 <ato> RRSAgent: please make these logs world-visible
17:00:32 <ato> RRSAgent: start a new log
17:00:40 <ato> RRSAgent: do not start a new log
17:00:43 <JohnJansen> hey lukeis
17:00:52 <ato> RRSAgent: please draft the minutes
17:00:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html ato
17:01:58 <ato> MikeSmith: nm, solved it!
17:02:12 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen: present+
17:02:23 <ato> present+ ato
17:02:31 <jimevans> present+ JimEvans
17:02:32 <JohnJansen> present+ JohnJansen
17:02:32 <ClayMartin> present+ ClayMartin
17:02:36 <jgraham> present+ jgraham
17:02:44 <jgraham> RRSAgent: generate minutes
17:02:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html jgraham
17:02:44 <brrian> present+ brrian
17:02:55 <ato> Chair: AutomatedTester
17:03:09 <samuong> present+ SamUong
17:03:20 <AutomatedTester> present+ AutomatedTester
17:03:25 <AutomatedTester> chair AutomatedTester
17:04:23 <AutomatedTester> RRSAgent: generate minutes
17:04:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
17:05:47 <ato> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebDriver/2016-July-F2F#Agenda
17:13:05 <ato> Scribe: ato
17:13:08 <ato> Topic: State of the union
17:13:31 <ato> AutomatedTester: We are mostly done with the writing of the specification into a format that is more precise and actionable.
17:13:45 <ato> jgraham: Citation needed on that count.
17:13:50 <ato> AutomatedTester: But we’ve come a long way.
17:14:11 <ato> AutomatedTester: We have a client that can be used for testing, which allows us to write tests for the specification.
17:14:20 <ato> AutomatedTester: It can speak to the HTTPDs that the vendors are producing and shipping.
17:14:30 <ato> AutomatedTester: As far as I know no one are running the tests yet, but it gives us a good starting point.
17:14:54 <ato> AutomatedTester: Key parts that needs to be written, is the actions API and that is one of the major topics for discussion today.
17:15:18 <ato> AutomatedTester: Where are we unnecessarily divergent from the open source project.
17:15:50 <ato> JohnJansen: The tests, you speak of the Web Platform Tests?
17:15:51 <ato> AutomatedTester: Yes.
17:16:12 <ato> jimevans: As far as this WG is concerned, they are the only tests that matter.
17:17:47 <ato> ato: [elaborates a bit on the new tests in WPT]
17:17:59 <ato> jgraham: There are some tests there.
17:18:34 <ato> ato: We test the protocol and main loop extensively. It’s test complete.
17:18:46 <ato> ClayMartin: I have a new agenda item. Where should I add it?
17:20:15 <ato> ato: https://sny.no/2016/05/wdspec
17:22:53 <ato> brrian, jimevans: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/2752
17:24:28 <ato> Topic: Agenda review
17:24:34 <ato> jgraham: We should review the agenda.
17:25:13 <ato> jimevans: I think the most important thing to get done are the actions.
17:25:40 <ato> Topic: Actions
17:25:55 <jgraham> https://github.com/jgraham/webdriver-actions
17:26:10 <ato> RRSAgent: draft
17:26:10 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft', ato.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:26:20 <ato> RRSAgent: draft minutes
17:26:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html ato
17:26:59 <ato> jgraham: There is some text in the spec that I think is not right.
17:27:13 <ato> jgraham: There are many implementation that are incompatible, and not conformant to the spec.
17:27:25 <ato> jgraham: I have written a draft of what I _think_ we were aiming for.
17:27:30 <ato> JohnJansen: Is it a PR?
17:27:39 <ato> jgraham: It’s two text documents
17:27:44 <ato> jgraham: (See link above)
17:27:44 <AutomatedTester> https://github.com/jgraham/webdriver-actions
17:28:26 <AutomatedTester> https://github.com/jgraham/webdriver-actions/commit/ae33aa579605ee215e8a0b3dc1b2182c3b6de074
17:43:37 <ato> ClayMartin: Can you mix and match per action item the input type?
17:43:54 <ato> jgraham: The idea is that each “track” can only represent one device type.
17:44:11 <ato> ClayMartin: So why does each action item also have a type?
17:44:16 <ato> jgraham: It’s a sub-type.
17:45:07 <ato> ClayMartin: Where do you specify the parallelisation?
17:52:11 <ato> jgraham: If all implementations were perfect they would run top-down and left-right.
17:52:22 <ato> brrian: Are the sources implicitly ordered?
17:52:39 <ato> jgraham: They are ordered by the natural ordering of the array.
17:52:53 <ato> samuong: Should it matter, the order?
17:53:22 <ato> jgraham: Yes.
17:53:36 <ato> samuong: Within the sequence, the order matters.
17:53:46 <ato> jgraham: For example, you can compress this.
17:54:33 <ato> jgraham: There’s no real parallalism here.
17:54:50 <ato> jgraham: Mouse move is interesting.
17:54:55 <ato> jgraham: An open question.
17:55:21 <ato> jgraham: Let’s say you have a pointer that’s at point A, then you want to move it to some element.
17:55:28 <ato> jgraham: It has to move along some path.
17:55:44 <ato> jgraham: Along that path there will be other elements, and it is not a priori obvious what should happen here.
17:56:04 <ato> jgraham: The easiest thing to imagine is a mouse. A finger can teleport.
17:56:24 <ato> jgraham: On the elements you hover over, you might or might not see events.
17:58:22 <ato> jgraham: I think the implementaiton should calculate the path at the start of the action, divide it into sub-points that are probably implementation defined, and how many there should be I don’t know; but we should give a hint. One per requestanimationframe, for example.
17:58:27 <ato> samuong: What should a tick be?
17:58:39 <ato> jgraham: By default a tick happens as fast as you can process it.
18:00:30 <ato> jgraham: It is possible in the API to specify a pause duration.
18:02:31 <ato> jgraham: There should be a null device for specifying a pause so that you can spread out a mouse move.
18:03:19 <ato> ato: But what if you don’t have a duration?
18:03:35 <ato> ClayMartin: Yeah, there should be a default duration.
18:03:43 <ato> jgraham: A minimum duration is not a bad idea.
18:04:59 <ato> jgraham: If you haven’t specified a pause, maybe it should really teleport.
18:05:07 <ato> ato: But it”s not something the user would do.
18:05:20 <ato> jimevans: But for the open source project users it doesn’t matter.
18:05:50 <ato> ClayMartin: If you do the movement for everything, you could introduce intermittents.
18:06:06 <ato> ClayMartin: It’s doing the shortest path possible, and the path could trigger something that interrupts the sequence.
18:06:22 <ato> jimevans: Some content on the page could interfere with the movement.
18:06:51 <ato> JohnJansen: Didn’t we decide to defer some of this stuff?
18:07:00 <ato> jgraham: I think touch is actually conceptually easier.
18:09:56 <ato> JohnJansen: We don’t want to tell the browsers what to fire.
18:10:01 <ato> JohnJansen: We want to describe what the user wants to do.
18:10:12 <ato> JohnJansen: And then you expect the browser to fire the right events.
18:10:35 <ato> jgraham: There should a note saying “if you don’t follow these other specs, then you probably shouldn’t try to implement this”.
18:10:55 <ato> samuong: pointerDown, pointerUp, pointerDown, pointerUp (double click), is the double click event fired?
18:11:08 <ato> samuong: What does "primary" mean here?
18:11:20 <ato> jgraham: It’s basically a shorthand way of saying “fire normal mouse events”.
18:11:36 <ato> samuong: There was also sub-type, wouldn’t that tell you?
18:11:51 <ato> jgraham: It tells you the type of event.
18:12:11 <ato> jgraham: [explains how the pointer events spec works]
18:12:27 <AutomatedTester> https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#
18:13:53 <ato> JohnJansen: So we’re going to have a normative reference to this spec.
18:13:58 <ato> JohnJansen: Can’t we just delegate to it?
18:14:08 <ato> jgraham: Yeah, except it’s very hand wavy.
18:15:15 <ato> samuong: We have people in Blink using this for pointer events testing: If we’re not feeding in user input, if we’re just specifying the events, that’s not what we want.
18:17:01 <ato> ato: WebDriver is adding additional value here.
18:17:14 <ato> ato: mouseMove, keyboard layout/modifier keys
18:17:27 <ato> jimevans: There used to be a mandate that you use a OS level input.
18:17:33 <ato> jimevans: But we’ve stripped that out.
18:18:11 <ato> jimevans: I think what we want to say, is that we want the browser react as-if this input occurred. This implies that certain DOM events get generated by the browser on certain elements.
18:18:31 <ato> jimevans: This is difficult, or if not impossible, to specify for the reasons jgraham gave earlier.
18:18:43 <ato> JohnJansen: Double click could be controlled by the OS.
18:19:40 <ato> ato: But these are all emulated, virtual devices.
18:20:22 <ato> jgraham: If we implement at the level of DOM events, then the advantages are that it’s consistent across browsers.
18:20:28 <ato> jgraham: And that we actually know how to write that as a spec.
18:20:46 <ato> jgraham: It has the disadvantage that if you literally implement the spec, it gives you different behaviour.
18:21:12 <ato> samuong: Is anyone implementing this? In JS?
18:21:16 <ato> AutomatedTester: We do in Marionette.
18:21:30 <ato> AutomatedTester: But we generate trusted events, so it’s not content DOM events.
18:22:24 <MikeSmith> RRSAgent, make logs public
18:22:29 <MikeSmith> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:22:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html MikeSmith
18:23:19 <ato> ato: [explains about synthetic events in gecok]
18:23:23 <ato> samuong: We have something similar.
18:25:39 <ato> brrian: We generate an appropriate platform event.
18:26:22 <ato> brrian: We synthesise events, doing it more level has problems.
18:26:37 <ato> ato: FirefoxDriver tried native input too.
18:26:43 <ato> jimevans: IEDriver same.
18:27:18 <ato> jgraham: There might be a hand-wavy way of doing this. “Generate platform events that eventually causes the following DOM events to be generated”
18:27:21 <ato> jimevans: That’s what I meant.
18:31:03 <ato> ato: There are three levels here: The spec describes the expected output you should expect in DOM after performing the actions, all the different UAs have different input stacks so we can’t specify that. Instead we have a more general abstraction that describes a more general input approach to this.
18:32:18 <ato> samuong: At Google they wanted to test tab completion (?)
18:32:55 <ato> jgraham: I think there’s a tension between the features needed to test a browsers and testing a content page.
18:33:09 <ato> JohnJansen: I want to test the ability to create a new tab, as a browser vendor.
18:36:47 <lukeis> lukeis has joined #webdriver
18:37:54 <lukeis> RRSAgent: draft minutes
18:37:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html lukeis
18:38:04 <ato> samuong: As a browser vendor having it at the OS level is what they want.
18:38:13 <ato> jimevans: New tab/new window is something users want
18:38:21 <ato> ClayMartin: [explains how to do UI automation in edge]
18:39:13 <ato> jgraham: Why don’t we have a command to open a new window?
18:40:44 <AutomatedTester> scribe automatedtester
18:41:08 <AutomatedTester> ato: let me describe how we do things in Marionette
18:41:42 <AutomatedTester> ato: if you have right-click that will create a context menu
18:42:00 <AutomatedTester> ato: and then we have a command called set_context and switch to browser chrome
18:42:37 <AutomatedTester> ato: we use this context to test addons and Firefox UI testing. Update and localization testing.
18:43:02 <AutomatedTester> ato: we should be careful not put yourself into a state that webdriver cant return from
18:43:27 <AutomatedTester> JohnJansen: We have that with EdgeDriver and we want to addons/chrome
18:44:34 <AutomatedTester> ato: If we describe that stuff is in other specs but as long as the end state is what we expect.
18:45:00 <AutomatedTester> brrian: What if there was a browser flag for cross platform handling?
18:45:31 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: my thinking is for now, this is the algorithm with the event sthat should be generated but implementation may inject them at a higher level
18:46:20 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: we expect this to do the "hand waving" thing and try use pointer events.
18:47:12 <AutomatedTester> ato: [reads out http://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html#algorithms]
18:47:38 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: we should describe what we think it should do
18:47:46 <AutomatedTester> ClayMartin: there might be a interop bug
18:48:01 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: but then the interop bug is in a different specification and not in webdriver
18:48:58 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: there are reasons where we should describe what events we should do. [explains example with shift+key]
18:49:04 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: going back to mouse movement
18:50:34 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: an interesting implementation detail is how to handle pinch, we should asynchronously do each of the items on each finger interleaved
18:50:46 <AutomatedTester> ato: how would we describe the micromovements?
18:51:00 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: not sure what problems could come up as I havent written this.
18:51:47 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: for pointermove event specifically, is there any mileage in adding a duration for how a tick (not micromovement)
18:53:29 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: as far as specify, we will need to have a default value for duration
18:54:02 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: we will have a pause(0) which is requestAnimationFrame duration
18:55:26 <lukeis1> lukeis1 has joined #webdriver
18:56:01 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: we could add a duration to pointer move and this is where the duration has a meaningful impact
18:56:17 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: and this would be different to pause which is wait for something or pad
18:56:50 <AutomatedTester> ClayMartin: for a move what data would we know? can I see the action
18:58:10 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: The default of the pointer for the start coordinates is 0,0
18:58:59 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: how we do describe coordinates? [draws a box]
18:59:19 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: if you pass in x,y that will be x, y of the viewport
18:59:50 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: if you pass in an element it would be the centre of the visibile centre of the element
19:00:01 <ato> http://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html#dfn-pointer-interactable-element
19:01:02 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: if you pass in an element and x,y we should take the top/left of the element and move to x,y from that point
19:01:30 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: [explains how this is similar to the OSS project
19:02:20 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: should we do MoveBy or MoveTo?
19:02:34 <AutomatedTester> [group votes for MoveTo]
19:02:59 <AutomatedTester> RRSAgent: draft minutes
19:02:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
19:46:58 <lukeis> lukeis has joined #webdriver
20:03:05 <samuong> samuong has joined #webdriver
20:06:02 <jimevans> jimevans has joined #webdriver
20:18:53 <AutomatedTester> scribe automatedtester
20:19:09 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: yesterday, Mozillians were discussing the following
20:19:13 <ato> Scribe: AutomatedTester
20:19:22 <ato> AutomatedTester: (You need the colon.)
20:19:26 <AutomatedTester> ahh :)
20:20:59 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: we wondered if there should be a a scroll to an element command for actions
20:22:26 <AutomatedTester> automatedtester: how can we help prevent footguns for users. If there are test bed that are 800x600 screens how can we prevent their tests from randomly breaking?
20:23:01 <AutomatedTester> ato: takeElementScreenshot doesnt screenshot to the element as requested by Microsoft in the past
20:24:21 <AutomatedTester> ato: part of me is uncertain that we have specialisation in certain commands where we could have a generalisation on all commands for scrolling
20:25:29 <AutomatedTester> ato: if we have separate command for scrolling, what would we do for normal commands. If we have a separate command we can see actions are more of a pipeline for commands
20:25:42 <JohnJansen> microserf
20:25:57 <AutomatedTester> ato: we can then, in a later version, see about batching other commands via the pipeline
20:26:42 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: we move to a pipeline we would then need to work out a storage system
20:27:27 <AutomatedTester> ato: we can use this to save on bandwidth between local and remote end points
20:28:40 <AutomatedTester> automatedtester: back to scroll to element
20:29:00 <AutomatedTester> ato: we should not hamper ourselves with our design if we wanted a pipeline later...
20:29:19 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: scrolling is an interesting case, high level does scrolling implicitly
20:30:16 <AutomatedTester> automatedtester: there is a end point from the OSS project called Location in view
20:30:46 <AutomatedTester> JohnJansen: we dont necessarily want to just scroll the element into view, we might want to scroll X pixels
20:31:04 <AutomatedTester> ato: we need to have the implicit scroll in high level
20:32:02 <JohnJansen> lukeis: yes, but I'd like to accomplish it without requiring any script execution.
20:32:03 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: if I wanted a 2 finger touch, there is currently no way to make sure the elements are in view. I would need to run script and then do the actions
20:34:00 <ato> ClayMartin: Should we fire scroll event when moving element into view?
20:34:15 <AutomatedTester> ClayMartin: Should we fire scroll event when moving element into view?
20:34:33 <AutomatedTester> automatedtester: that is a different question. We need to see if we want the command before we seeing what events we want to do
20:35:21 <AutomatedTester> ClayMartin: in touch we dont do mouse scroll
20:35:35 <AutomatedTester> automatedtester: on those we are going to do flick type events
20:36:13 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: I recognise the usefulness of an action for scrolling, is it something that we can add in L2?
20:36:19 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: yes
20:36:31 <AutomatedTester> JohnJansen: implicitly scroll?
20:36:45 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: no, we defer to L2
20:37:25 <AutomatedTester> yup :)
20:40:20 <AutomatedTester> brrian: what would happen in interweaved actions and a scroll?
20:40:41 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: [Described what could happen in that scenario]
20:41:20 <AutomatedTester> ato: The document could do items to the page which could break things
20:41:51 <AutomatedTester> samuong: in ChromeDriver we get all the coords at the beginning of the action so scrolling could cause issues
20:42:58 <AutomatedTester> samuong: should we get the coordinates at the beginning of the tick?
20:43:25 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: yes, you could have a pinch zoom that would move things
20:45:26 <AutomatedTester> resolution: defer scroll to L2
20:45:57 <AutomatedTester> JohnJansen: high level commands can not be described in low level commands
20:48:33 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: after the tick finished,  should we add an event to the event loop? (postMessage or setTimeout) or it waits for an animation frame?
20:48:55 <AutomatedTester> brrian: I want it so that it will yield to the event loop
20:49:09 <AutomatedTester> brrian: if its a timer or requestAnimationFrame...
20:50:37 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: vertical items in the actions should be done as fast as possible and then a vsync for the next horizontal item
20:50:59 <AutomatedTester> samuong: what about dialogs? We stop the event loop if the alert happens
20:51:30 <AutomatedTester> ato: it might cycle for the current vertical
20:52:44 <AutomatedTester> ato: should we check for the dialogs at the beginning of each action?
20:53:33 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: suppose I have 2 key press events, if the first 1 causes the alert we can't check for a dialog because we dont know the 2nd item has been processed
20:54:16 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: because the event loop is paused and then you are...
20:56:36 <AutomatedTester> samuong: if we are putting a lot of checks on each check then it could cause issues with the processing of the event loop
20:58:16 <AutomatedTester> samuong: if we have to return to the user we could take longer than the tick was supposed to happen
20:59:57 <Guest3> Guest3 has joined #webdriver
21:00:01 <JohnJansen> resolved: Defer scroll to L2
21:00:15 <errant_rider> errant_rider has joined #webdriver
21:00:30 <AutomatedTester> RRSAgent: draft minutes
21:00:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
21:01:24 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: [describing how if there is an alert appears we block the event loop]
21:03:27 <samuong> samuong has joined #webdriver
21:03:35 <AutomatedTester> ato: If I was implement it in marionette we have a user prompt service that we can use that is and then do the alert and check a global state
21:04:43 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: you would need check that state before moving on to the next tick and then dismiss the dialog before moving to the next tick
21:05:39 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: we inject [keydown, pointerdown] into the event loop. We have to do something to say do the next tick e.g. setTimeout
21:06:32 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: if we do [keydown, pointerdown, setTimeout] and the pointerdown causing the alert, we can't reach the setTimeout
21:07:02 <AutomatedTester> ato: [writes pseudo code on whiteboard]
21:09:27 <AutomatedTester> ato: for (let action of tick) { event.sendSyntheticpointerdown(action)} yield content.executeScript("window.setTimeout")
21:09:40 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: but we can't reach the executeScript
21:10:21 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: the pointerDown will cause the timeout to never be reached
21:13:02 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: to deal with alerts, you would need to have an event (a non content event that isnt blocked by the event loop)
21:14:04 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: the difference between this and what is in the spec. We can't always check in actions
21:14:43 <AutomatedTester> ato: if I were implementing it, if this was in a thread I would check during it and then shutdown the thread abort processing the following steps
21:16:15 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: if at any point of the action sequence, we need to make sure we dont hang the driver
21:16:41 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: how it is handled is totally up to the person writing webdriver code
21:17:47 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: if the page injects something that does an alert it would be good to remove the current writing
21:18:37 <smccarthy> smccarthy has joined #webdriver
21:19:17 <AutomatedTester> ato: we need to have something that keeps track that the dialog has appeared
21:19:42 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: bottom line, you either expect the dialog or not
21:20:01 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: I am clicking on a button that will create a alert or not
21:20:11 <AutomatedTester> RRSAgent: draft minutes
21:20:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
21:23:01 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: we should have a basic bit of text how to handle alerts not on each command.
21:23:15 <AutomatedTester> ato: no, we need it on all commands
21:23:45 <AutomatedTester> ato: there are special cases were we dont want to check for alerts
21:26:26 <AutomatedTester> resolution: for commands that spin the event loop, prompt handling should be invoked if an alert appears at any time
21:26:34 <AutomatedTester> RRSAgent: draft minutes
21:26:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
21:27:45 <AutomatedTester> samuong: Should we remove element references and only use X, Y coords in actions?
21:28:36 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: we need to be wary of backwards compat
21:28:58 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: I prefer the idea of checking the coords before the start of the tick
21:29:16 <AutomatedTester> ato: there might be a race condition or the other actions have meant to move it.
21:30:34 <AutomatedTester> Topic: keyboards
21:30:47 <AutomatedTester> JohnJansen: does this really matter?
21:31:39 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: what is the keycode you get when pass in a key? The following options are :
21:31:43 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: Should we just hard code 104 keyboard and just use that keyboard.
21:32:04 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: use the keyboard attached, but if in a test farm there are not always keyboards
21:33:01 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: option 3: defaults to a US keyboard but the ability to change
21:33:22 <AutomatedTester> ato: we could add a new command, "setThisKeyboard"
21:34:04 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: option 4: set a per session state for the keyboard
21:34:31 <AutomatedTester> JohnJansen: for L1 we default to 104 US QWERTY keyboard
21:35:05 <AutomatedTester> brrian: how would I input Japanese into a page
21:35:55 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: that works, currently you send through unicode code points. We may not do the right keycode and they might be using IME
21:36:32 <AutomatedTester> brrian: do we do it as a string?
21:36:45 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: no, per unicode code point
21:37:12 <AutomatedTester> brrian: not all japanese strings are divisible to code points
21:38:18 <AutomatedTester> brrian: if you deliver it in some OSes like this, it might not handle this properly. There are dead keys that only activate when you press the next letter
21:38:52 <AutomatedTester> brrian: safaridriver uses graphine cluster boundaries
21:39:12 <AutomatedTester> brrian: I would like the spec to say to be split on this boundaries
21:41:02 <AutomatedTester> ato: what would you do with ü?
21:41:07 <AutomatedTester> brrian: We would send it as 2 code points
21:41:28 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: what happens in the DOM for keycodes
21:41:53 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: do you get 2 events or 1?
21:41:57 <AutomatedTester> brrian: you get 1
21:44:01 <AutomatedTester> [ato and jgraham discussing example of dead keys]
21:44:19 <ato> AutomatedTester: This key has passed on.
21:44:22 <ato> AutomatedTester: It is deceased.
21:44:25 <ato> AutomatedTester: It is no more.
21:44:36 <jgraham> http://unixpapa.com/js/testkey.html
21:45:15 <AutomatedTester> the keyUp is registered for the umlaut but not the keypress
21:45:19 <AutomatedTester> ato the keyUp is registered for the umlaut but not the keypress
21:54:10 <brrian> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Grapheme_Cluster_Boundary_Rules
21:54:44 <AutomatedTester> brrian: it would be better if the spec split on grapheme clusters
21:55:49 <AutomatedTester> ato: I am unclear on the benefit here. Would the client split on grapheme cluster?
21:56:30 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: no, you would send the unicode string in a decomposed form. e.g. "u.
21:56:53 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: you would send over 2 code points
21:57:12 <AutomatedTester> ato: this is different to how everyone currently doing it
21:58:24 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: I think we should investigate more and discuss again in Lisbon
21:58:54 <AutomatedTester> action: brrian to come up more use cases for splitting
21:59:52 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: for actions, and maybe sendKeys, what should [shift, a ] do?
21:59:58 <AutomatedTester> ato: it should be an A
22:00:41 <AutomatedTester> ato: should this only happen on sendKEys or should it work with Actions?
22:00:48 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: there are 2 options
22:01:41 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: 1) if you have modifier key pressed you get the next letter
22:02:20 <AutomatedTester> jgraham: 2) if you can't get a char with a modifier, e.g. modifier is pressed by we release, do the other char, and then do the modifier
22:02:35 <AutomatedTester> JohnJansen: [does an example with caps lock]
22:05:06 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: for sendKeys, and only with shift modifier, you would send the string you wanted, and it should be string as is
22:06:23 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: if you send shift + 1 results in !. In sendKeys we implicitly release the modifier
22:07:34 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: [looks up some data in the OSS code base]
22:08:50 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: the current OSS version does have sendKeys actions end point
22:11:06 <AutomatedTester> ato: what would happen in the current clients to handle this against the spec version
22:12:39 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: most Selenium users are using A and not shift + a
22:14:24 <AutomatedTester> ato: the language bindings might have to do a lot of extra work here
22:14:36 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: that is fine, we are doing a non-trivial amount of work here
22:15:35 <AutomatedTester> jimevans: I am not worried about backwards compat here in actions because it is "Do what I say". People will want to be combining keys where in sendKeys they will send the result
22:19:41 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen has joined #webdriver
22:25:07 <simonstewart> simonstewart has joined #webdriver
22:31:12 <AutomatedTester> resolution: for keyUp/keyDown actions we won't do implicit conversion of shift. e.g. for shift + 7 we do 7 with shift modifier set
22:40:23 <simonstewart> simonstewart has joined #webdriver
22:43:38 <samuong> samuong has joined #webdriver
22:43:42 <samuong> scribe: samuong
22:47:56 <samuong> topic: new session
22:49:16 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen has joined #webdriver
22:49:38 <samuong> jgraham: want to have top-level capabilities for non-feature-matrix capabilities
22:50:23 <samuong> jgraham: current api is designed for source labs/google-style use case with grid of test machines
22:50:57 <samuong> jgraham: however for many uses cases, having desired and required capabilities is confusing
22:52:02 <samuong> jgraham: can we simplify this, can we standardize new session data?
22:54:08 <samuong> ato: intermediary could handle selecting a host from the pool with correct features, but driver doesn't need to worry about matrix selection
22:54:38 <simonstewart> “I have opinions"
22:54:54 <samuong> ato: e.g. proxy settings doesn't make sense as a "desired" capability
22:54:58 <simonstewart> ato is correct
22:55:03 <simonstewart> Until then :)
22:55:34 <simonstewart> The “new session” data is what’s required to successfully set up the browser instance
22:55:38 <simonstewart> So the proxy is required
22:55:49 <simonstewart> Whether it’s honoured or not is a different thing entirely
22:56:01 <simonstewart> Which is why they’re “desired” capabailities
22:56:21 <simonstewart> (services such as Sauce Labs and Browser Stack may choose to ignore the setting, for example)
22:56:56 <simonstewart> My personal view?
22:57:24 <simonstewart> We need a minimum set of routing data (browser, OS, version numbers) for intermediary nodes
22:57:36 <simonstewart> And then each browser can figure out what it wants to do with the data
22:58:07 <simonstewart> We also need to support multiple “profiles” (to use Mozilla’s term) in the same new session request
22:58:08 <samuong> ato: distinction between desired and required capabilities is a CI-level concept that might be out-of-scope for the spec
22:58:19 <simonstewart> I disagree
22:58:28 <simonstewart> “desired” == optional, and can be ignored
22:58:39 <simonstewart> “required” == must be set, or fail the new session
22:59:01 <simonstewart> Is there a facetime audio number I can call into?
22:59:07 <simonstewart> Or a Hangout?
22:59:40 <simonstewart> The difference between the two is within scope for the spec
22:59:46 <simonstewart> And also what the current drivers do
22:59:54 <simonstewart> So we’re just speccing existing behaviour
23:00:02 <simonstewart> Which is good, right?
23:00:35 <simonstewart> Whoever is scribing, please continue to do so
23:01:56 <samuong> jgraham: is that we should discuss this at lisbon
23:02:10 <simonstewart> That sentence makes no sense?
23:02:21 <simonstewart> We should discuss “new session” in Lisbon?
23:02:29 <samuong> yes
23:02:34 <simonstewart> Thanks :)
23:03:49 <JohnJansen> ok, let's kill this. we need to discuss in lisbon with Simon
23:04:08 <simonstewart> I can dial in, if there’s a number I can call over wifi without SIP
23:04:22 <simonstewart> Or skype. Nothing I have has skype in :)
23:06:11 <samuong> ato: there was some discussion about having a capability that gets returned to clients to allow feature detection for w3c features
23:06:32 <samuong> jimevans: simon's email lays out the handshake
23:06:49 <samuong> jimevans: this is consistnet with how current bindings do it
23:06:51 <simonstewart> Feature detection is definitely the way forward
23:06:52 <samuong> ato: only c#, not node.js
23:07:19 <simonstewart> The JS mob got into a horrible mess with assuming certain capabilities based on version numbers
23:07:20 <samuong> ato: marionette returns a capability with marionette=true
23:07:26 <samuong> jimevans: this probalby isn't how it should be done
23:07:33 <simonstewart> I’m looking at Opera here in particular
23:07:46 <simonstewart> marionette saying it’s marionette is cool
23:07:56 <simonstewart> I’d expect browsers to report themselves
23:08:00 <simonstewart> Additional metadata is fine
23:08:13 <samuong> jimevans: you can construct new session command that is valid for both dialects
23:08:14 <simonstewart> But saying “I’m level 1 compliant” is incredibly dangerous
23:08:22 <samuong> jimevans: the response should tell you what dialect to continue speaking
23:09:04 <samuong> jimevans: this can be done by looking at the status field
23:09:30 <simonstewart> for reference: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-browser-tools-testing/2016JulSep/0001.html
23:10:09 <simonstewart> Search that for “handshake"
23:10:39 <simonstewart> Hahaha :)
23:10:47 <ClayMartin> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/FnoqIzbO/s4b
23:11:39 <simonstewart> Hang on. I need to download skype
23:12:01 <ClayMartin> you should be able to just call the phone number
23:12:11 <ClayMartin> or go here
23:12:15 <ClayMartin> https://join.microsoft.com/meet/clmartin/IA7XCEF4
23:12:20 <ClayMartin> that will join you in the browser
23:12:48 <ClayMartin> Skype for Business != Skype so don't bother downloading that I believe
23:13:57 <simonstewart> I’m not allowed to install the plugin for all users, and it won’t install for just me
23:14:01 <simonstewart> Swithcing to Chrome
23:16:47 <brrian> :|
23:16:53 <simonstewart> I need to install the plugin as root for my local user account
23:17:00 <simonstewart> JohnJansen: I have a bug report for you
23:17:08 <JohnJansen> i was against this from the start
23:17:10 <JohnJansen> :-)
23:17:16 <brrian> I can verify
23:17:51 <simonstewart> “The organiser will let you in soon"
23:17:53 <simonstewart> Apparently
23:17:57 <simonstewart> :)
23:18:42 <JohnJansen> simonstewart: are you on mute?
23:18:48 <simonstewart> I’m speaking
23:19:09 <simonstewart> Can you see me?
23:19:46 <jgraham> simonstewart: We can hear you now
23:20:35 <simonstewart> Can you hear me as I speak?
23:21:17 <jgraham> simonstewart: No, so there is some terrible hack going on here
23:21:25 <simonstewart> Ok
23:21:33 <simonstewart> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htobTBlCvUU
23:22:22 <samuong> simonstewart: let's discuss this now instead of in lisbon
23:23:02 <samuong> johnjansen: conversation so far is that this is configuration we want to set that's not related to the browser we get back
23:23:35 <samuong> simonstewart: if you've got safari, proxy is set at os level, firefox is at browser level, edge is os-level
23:23:43 <samuong> simonstewart: some things that are browser-specific, some things are os-specific
23:24:07 <samuong> simonstewart: for every case, it's a case of "i want a session that fits in these parameters"
23:24:28 <samuong> simonstewart: if local end requests (e.g.) IE on linux, remote end can give back IE on windows
23:24:49 <samuong> simonstewart: response from new session command is the set of capabilities you've got (not what you asked for)
23:25:07 <samuong> simonstewart: in open-soruce project, proxy has been omitted, since it's hard for remote ends to sniff proxy settings
23:26:43 <samuong> simonstewart: but some tests might absolutely require certain proxies, otherwise session is not useful
23:26:59 <samuong> simonstewart: need to find balance, e.g. can't serialize entire browser profile and send back
23:27:21 <samuong> jgraham: from my pov, makes sense to talk about desired/required capabilities, in terms of keys that you can have in new session command
23:27:33 <samuong> jgraham: not clear that spec has to specify what intermediary nodes shoudl do with that
23:27:53 <samuong> jgraham: if nodes want to be compatible with each other, they should have a separate shorter spec
23:28:05 <simonstewart> I am listening jgraham
23:28:08 <simonstewart> Keep going, please :)
23:28:18 <samuong> jgraham: this is the only thing that's specific to intermediary nodes
23:28:45 <samuong> jgraham: current spec just says what capabilities are there, doesn't say how to resolve between desired/required capabilities
23:28:51 <simonstewart> Give me a signal when I should start replying
23:29:13 <samuong> jgraham: this is a legitimate desire, but it's not useful to have a desired/required distinction for configuration that gets sent to browsers
23:29:43 <samuong> jgraham: don't want to haev to distinguish this in gecko driver
23:30:02 <samuong> simonstewart: idea behind new session command is that hte request is the allocation of the resource
23:30:16 <samuong> simonstewart: originally, everything was a desired capability
23:30:40 <samuong> simonstewart: and then users would inspect those capabilities and fail the test if the capabilities don't meet requirements
23:30:57 <samuong> simonstewart: it turned out that people believed that "desired" meant "required", which is unfortunate
23:31:25 <samuong> simonstewart: so some googlers (jleyba) pushed for required capabilities
23:31:43 <samuong> simonstewart: browser name is a good candidate for being in required capabilities
23:31:53 <samuong> simonstewart: preferences, proxies, etc. are good candidates for being in desired capabilities
23:32:26 <samuong> simonstewart: capabilities (local end -> remote end) is a list of requests
23:33:05 <samuong> jgraham: i agree this is what the current system is, but this pushes complexity onto gecko driver and other drivers
23:33:36 <samuong> jgraham: e.g. gecko driver needs to have code to handle the binary
23:33:45 <samuong> simonstewart: this is simple, the binary is either there or not
23:34:00 <samuong> jgraham: but we need different code depending on whether its desired or required
23:34:12 <samuong> simonstewart: are there any other capabilities we can use as an example?
23:34:24 <samuong> ato: we should only treat browser name, version, platform specially
23:35:00 <samuong> ato: according to spec, we need to create a "third" capabilities object
23:35:32 <samuong> simonstewart: binary is a browser-specific feature, it's common but not global (e.g. on android we need an android package)
23:35:51 <samuong> jgraham: it shoudl be interoperable for each of those common cases
23:36:13 <samuong> ato: chrome has chromeoptions, gecko driver has something similar, no reason why chrome and firefox couldn't share some of those keys
23:36:51 <samuong> simonstewart: user could request "a browser on windows"
23:37:27 <samuong> claymartin: drivers and browsers ahve a one-to-one relationship
23:37:51 <samuong> claymartin: selenium shoudl handle desired/required capabilities, i don't get why servers should have to care about it
23:38:09 <samuong> claymartin: why can't selenium handle the complexity, and only pass the needed capabilities?
23:38:32 <samuong> simonstewart: because existing intermediate nodes would then need to track versions and features
23:38:46 <samuong> simonstewart: intermediary nodes need a base set of capabilties to do routing (whcih is already in spec)
23:39:01 <samuong> simonstewart: (brwoser name, version, os version)
23:39:18 <samuong> simonstewart: we also should have a way to specify ranges for versions
23:39:45 <samuong> simonstewart: could do a translation in the intermediary node, but then this would make them very complicated, and prone to breakage
23:39:55 <samuong> simonstewart: this limits browser vendors' ability to innovate and experiment
23:40:32 <samuong> jgraham: i agree, but don't think that browser-specific information should end up in capabilities
23:41:12 <samuong> jgraham: current system makes it hard to specify binary path depending on os
23:41:26 <samuong> simonstewart: that's true, we need to allow differentiation at the os-level
23:42:14 <samuong> jgraham: current design is poor
23:43:27 <samuong> simonstewart: we shouldn't redesign this because there's a very large existing userbase, and we don't want to cause unnecessary churn
23:43:50 <samuong> simonstewart: it's hard for users to do updates, they've spent a lot of time and money to build webdriver tests
23:43:59 <samuong> simonstewart: we should keep changes to a minimum, although we can do tweaks
23:44:10 <samuong> simonstewart: e.g. we should allow specifying multiple version numbers
23:44:28 <samuong> simonstewart: intermediary nodes shouldn't need to care, they just need to select a vm or host to run on
23:45:10 <samuong> simonstewart: then ie driver, chromedriver, etc. can have their own config
23:45:30 <samuong> jgraham: i'm not proposing we change anything with routing
23:45:41 <samuong> jgraham: change would only be in the clients
23:45:49 <samuong> simonstewart: but there are many clients
23:45:57 <samuong> jgraham: but they have to update anyway, to be spec compliant
23:46:42 <samuong> jgraham: my proposal is that we should have a set of keys that browsers agree on, so that it's easier to implement remote ends
23:47:44 <samuong> jgraham: if it is necessary to have version-dependent fields (e.g. set a certain preference for firefox on linux version X), should be able to express that
23:48:10 <samuong> simonstewart: but why can't this be separated into desired/required capabilities?
23:48:14 <samuong> johnjansen: did we lose you?
23:48:22 <simonstewart> Can you still hear me?
23:48:30 <jgraham> No
23:48:33 <ato> simonstewart: I think the connection dropped.
23:48:37 <simonstewart> I was “removed from the meeting"
23:48:47 <brrian> simonstewart: skype became very cross and hung itself up
23:48:52 <simonstewart> Joining again
23:49:08 <simonstewart> Can you hear me?
23:49:19 <simonstewart> Of course, it always starts muted
23:49:21 <simonstewart> Can you hear me now?
23:50:02 <samuong> jgraham: my point is that for things that aren't about matrix-selection, desired vs required requires extra code
23:50:18 <samuong> jgraham: it's not clear because this isn't spec'd
23:50:42 <samuong> simonstewart: spec should just say that if a required capability is not met, then it should fail
23:50:50 <samuong> jgraham: i don't want to implement that
23:51:20 <samuong> ato: existing drivers conflate desired and required capabilities
23:51:46 <samuong> simonstewart: we should have it in the spec that new session should fail if a required capability is not met
23:52:43 <samuong> jgraham: if i can't start the binary, and the binary is "desired", what should it do?
23:53:12 <ClayMartin> This is Sam speaking now
23:53:51 <samuong> samuong: what if firefox driver gets a desired binary that points to a chrome binary
23:54:17 <ato> jimevans: (you are right)
23:54:36 <samuong> simonstewart: if a driver doesn't know how to handle a desired capability, it's ok
23:55:02 <samuong> jgraham: this pushes complexity in to hte drivers
23:55:12 <samuong> simonstewart: the other way pushes complexity into the clients
23:56:52 <samuong> simonstewart: we only need to specify browser name, version, etc. (to allow routing)
23:57:05 <samuong> and this should be specified
23:57:13 <ClayMartin> browser name, browser version, platform name, platform version
23:58:24 <samuong> simonstewart: don't want to require intermediary nodes to do processing, they should pass through payloads without interpretation
23:58:52 <samuong> simonstewart: otherwise we need to specify how to transforms blobs of data for keys that we don't know about
23:59:02 <samuong> simonstewart: blob of data from local end should make it to remote end?
23:59:12 <samuong> jgraham: i don't disagree, but we disagree about how that blob should be structured
23:59:31 <samuong> jimevans: the stuff that an intermediary node cares about is encapsulated in desired/required capabilities
23:59:44 <samuong> jimevans: the stuff that a terminal node cares about is also encapsulated there, but i think james is saying it shouldn't be
00:00:02 <samuong> simonstewart: my position is the opposite - you either have somethign that is optional, or it's mandated
00:00:50 <samuong> jgraham: we don't do this now
00:01:13 <samuong> jgraham: who implements this?
00:01:17 <samuong> samuong: chromedriver doesn't
00:01:22 <samuong> claymartin: i'd have to check
00:01:26 <samuong> jimevans: ie driver doesn't
00:01:48 <samuong> ato: distinction doesn't make sense - e.g. for the binary, either it runs or it doesn't
00:01:58 <samuong> simonstewart: then it's not required
00:02:12 <samuong> simonstewart: if it's required and you can't run the binary, it should fail
00:03:00 <samuong> jimevans: if path to binary is a desired capability, and the path doesn't exist, should we have a "reasonable default"?
00:03:30 <samuong> jimevans: this would be inferred from the browser, version, platform
00:03:39 <samuong> jimevans: but james is saying he doesn't want to have to implement that lgoic
00:04:16 <samuong> brrian: we have use cases where we test different safari binaries
00:04:34 <samuong> brrian: if we get a required binary and it isn't the right version, it'll fail
00:05:07 <samuong> brrian: we don't use intermediate nodes, so we can't say "find me a node that has this binary"
00:05:38 <samuong> simonstewart: intermediary node needs to look at browser name and platform, and spin up the appropriate node
00:05:57 <samuong> simonstewart: it's up to the intermediary node to decide when a set of required capabiliteis are overly specific
00:06:33 <samuong> brrian: clarifying use case: no intermediary node, want to test stable and beta version of browser
00:06:44 <samuong> brrian: encode version number, binary for browser, in required capabilities
00:07:19 <samuong> simonstewart: so it's perfectly legitimate if the new session command fails if the binary doesn't exist
00:07:43 <samuong> jgraham: that's how firefox works too - it doesn't go and find a different binary to the one that was desired
00:07:51 <samuong> jgraham: does anyone care about this use case?
00:09:18 <samuong> simonstewart: example use case is when a grid auto-scales out to aws or another provider, and binaries are not in standard locations
00:09:48 <samuong> simonstewart: local ends need to sniff capabilities, and make sure that browser name and version meet the requirements, and fail if it doesn't
00:10:18 <samuong> simonstewart: current open source implementation doens't work very well if you need to sniff out proxy, for example
00:10:48 <samuong> claymartin: edge driver does fail if required caps are not met, but will continue if desired caps aren't met
00:12:07 <samuong> jgraham: if someone requires an extension in edge, and it fails, waht happens?
00:12:20 <samuong> johnjansen: it would fail to create a session
00:12:55 <samuong> automatedtester: if you pass in a binary location for edge (desired) and the location doesn't exist on endpoint, what happens?
00:13:45 <samuong> simonstewart: if binary is desired but not present, then it falls back to other methods of finding the binary (e.g. browser name, browser version, platform name, platform version)
00:13:53 <samuong> jimevans: or it could look in the registry for edge's location, or something
00:14:36 <samuong> simonstewart: missing desires are not such a big deal
00:15:19 <samuong> (simonstewart has an analogy about quitting work and hang gliding, and the nature of desire, but claims this isn't deeply philosophical)
00:16:46 <samuong> jgraham: not sure this is conversation is productive
00:16:48 <brrian> samuong++
00:17:05 <samuong> johnjansen: the other thing we wanted to talk about is handshakes, versioning
00:18:00 <samuong> now we're talking about the handshake described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-browser-tools-testing/2016JulSep/0001.html
00:19:27 <samuong> jimevans: in a successful session creation, open source protocol has an integer status
00:19:38 <samuong> ato: so in your c# code, it should check for that field, right?
00:19:45 <samuong> jimevans: yes
00:20:09 <samuong> simonstewart: if you are w3c compliant, you only send w3c responses, remote end should respond appropriately
00:20:27 <samuong> simonstewart: from a spec point of view, we shouldn't have to care about this, we just assume everyone's w3c-compliant
00:21:09 <samuong> simonstewart: there's enough info in the new session request and the response to determine whether we're speaking the open source dialect or the w3c protocol
00:21:48 <samuong> jimevans: w3c doesn't send an integer status code in the response
00:21:51 <samuong> ato: ok
00:23:15 <samuong> johnjansen: we don't need to do anything
00:23:35 <samuong> simonstewart: yes, we don't need to modify spec, only changes are in open source code
00:24:29 <samuong> RRSAgent: please draft the minutes
00:24:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-webdriver-minutes.html samuong
00:25:16 <samuong> RRSAgent: please track the action items
00:25:16 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'please track the action items', samuong.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
00:25:28 <samuong> RRSAgent: please track action items
00:26:21 <samuong> RRSAgent: stop