IRC log of htmlt on 2011-08-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:49 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #htmlt

15:00:49 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/23-htmlt-irc

15:01:10 [krisk]

zakim, this is htmlt

15:01:10 [Zakim]

krisk, I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be htmlt".

15:01:21 [krisk]

zakim, this will be htmlt

15:01:22 [Zakim]

ok, krisk; I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM scheduled to start now

15:02:32 [Zakim]

HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has now started

15:02:39 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft]

15:03:08 [krisk]

zakim, Microsoft is me

15:03:08 [Zakim]

+krisk; got it

15:03:37 [krisk]

I called into the conf call incase someone else dials in

15:03:57 [krisk]

Though like most meeting I suspect this will be on IRC

15:05:06 [krisk]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Aug/0014.html

15:06:54 [krisk]

Agenda Item #1 Bugs on approved tests

15:06:59 [krisk]

Looks like we have two bugs

15:07:02 [krisk]

First is http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13767

15:07:40 [Ms2ger]

We should probably just remove these tests

15:08:47 [krisk]

I agree as well

15:09:16 [krisk]

jgraham/gsnedders do you object?

15:09:30 [jgraham]

(looking)

15:09:50 [jgraham]

Yep, delete them

15:10:41 [krisk]

So we have consensus that these tests should be removed

15:11:02 [krisk]

Next bug http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13875

15:12:11 [krisk]

This seem like more of an ask for the w3c systems team?

15:12:39 [krisk]

Can you explain more Ms2ger?

15:13:16 [krisk]

Php seems to be universal in terms of support and documentation

15:13:42 [jgraham]

Well it is not universal in that Mozilla don't use it for their testing

15:14:11 [jgraham]

OTOH, there are clearly cases that won't be covered by less than a full blown language

15:14:43 [Ms2ger]

Right; we will need a full blown language for some tests

15:15:07 [Ms2ger]

I think it's still useful to limit the use of such a language to the cases where it's actually necessary

15:15:49 [krisk]

I'm not opposed to have another way to create tests if we are limited by what we have in place today

15:16:04 [krisk]

This is why MS helped get the w3c a Hg server

15:16:15 [jgraham]

I don't object to having a simple method for common cases if it is trivial to implement via apache

15:16:36 [jgraham]

The W3C server is useless for our internal testing

15:17:00 [krisk]

Ms2ger can you add an example test that can't be done with php that is possible using the httpd.js ?

15:17:06 [jgraham]

I don't know what it is like at Microsoft, but here using external servers for tests is forbidden for reliability reasons

15:17:17 [Ms2ger]

This isn't about tests that can't be done using PHP

15:17:30 [Ms2ger]

It's about tests that are easier to write without it

15:18:30 [Ms2ger]

The text/plain test you commented on, for example, could be done with a one line ^headers^ files

15:18:38 [jgraham]

Ms2ger: Can you write an implementation using only common apache modules?

15:18:56 [Ms2ger]

I don't know, I hope so

15:19:19 [jgraham]

I think we should revisit this once the implementability has been demonstrated

15:19:23 [Ms2ger]

Agreed

15:20:19 [krisk]

Microsoft doesn't use apache or php internally for testing

15:20:49 [jgraham]

Intresting. So you are screwed either way :)

15:20:56 [krisk]

Though translating from asp.net to php is trivial

15:21:18 [jgraham]

But what Ms2ger suggests is likely to also be trivial in IIS (I guess)

15:21:31 [Ms2ger]

Presumably as trivial as in Apache

15:21:44 [jgraham]

Yeah, as trivial or not I suppose I mean

15:21:46 [jgraham]

t

15:22:02 [krisk]

so what is httpd.js an appache module?

15:22:20 [jgraham]

A webserver written entirely in javascript aiui

15:22:32 [jgraham]

Nothing to do with apache

15:23:00 [Ms2ger]

What jgraham said :)

15:23:58 [krisk]

One way to help is to submit this to Hg and send email to the list saying mozilla would like to give this to the w3c for possible use for testing

15:23:59 [jgraham]

(the point of bringing up apache is that I assume it is relevant to the W3C systems team)

15:24:57 [krisk]

I'm not against this just need more information

15:25:09 [Ms2ger]

My idea was to re-implement the file format for apache

15:25:27 [jgraham]

Right, lets see if that is possible first them come back to this bug

15:25:33 [jgraham]

+'

15:25:42 [Ms2ger]

(Though I have to admit I don't have a lot of experience with server side stuff)

15:26:02 [krisk]

Ok ms2ger can you add more to the bug?

15:26:11 [Ms2ger]

Will do

15:26:27 [krisk]

Agenda item #2 PHP

15:27:32 [krisk]

I just wanted to note that I pushed a php script and it worked just fine

15:27:39 [Ms2ger]

Excellent

15:27:39 [krisk]

http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/async/delay.php

15:27:51 [krisk]

It's used for some async script tests

15:28:18 [krisk]

async is pretty important for browser interop

15:28:49 [krisk]

since if all browsers run script differently a page is never going to work the same across browsers

15:29:24 [Ms2ger]

I'll see if I can get someone to review them

15:29:55 [krisk]

I was going to send a private email to phl to let be aware of the php in case the systems folks wants to review

15:30:27 [krisk]

though it's a very trivial php file

15:31:38 [Ms2ger]

I thought they got alerted automatically, but might be good to confirm that with plh

15:32:32 [krisk]

Agenda item #3 Test submissions

15:32:43 [krisk]

I submitted some tests from microsoft

15:32:56 [krisk]

some use async_test

15:32:59 [krisk]

for example http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/async/async_003.htm

15:33:43 [krisk]

Beyond if the test is a normative requirement I would be good to have feedback on the use of async_test

15:34:00 [krisk]

I also didn't find a clean way to have a test timeout and fail

15:34:25 [krisk]

I though the setup({timeout:100}) would do this but it didn't

15:35:02 [jgraham]

If a test times out it times out

15:35:07 [Ms2ger]

You're always running the timeout function before that kicks in, right?

15:35:32 [jgraham]

There isn't a way to say "a timeout is equivalent to a fail"

15:36:11 [Ms2ger]

I'd say timeouts are always failures

15:36:23 [Ms2ger]

But that's a question for the runner, really

15:36:52 [jgraham]

Yes

15:36:55 [jgraham]

That's my view

15:37:29 [jgraham]

It is OK to write a test where timeout implies fail because any sane runner will realise that a timeout isn't a pass result

15:37:56 [krisk]

IMHO I added a timer to the async_tests that forces a fail before the setup({timeout}) occurs

15:38:22 [jgraham]

That is OK too ofc

15:38:33 [jgraham]

I don't have a strong opinion on the right style here

15:39:00 [krisk]

Thanks that is why I am asking

15:39:17 [Ms2ger]

I think it would be better to get rid of the setTimeout, though... I'll have a look if I can come up with something later

15:39:55 [jgraham]

The only problem with splicit in-test timeouts is that they can cause problems if you run the tests on unexpectedly slow platforms

15:40:01 [jgraham]

e.g. mobile devices

15:40:07 [jgraham]

*explicit

15:40:23 [Ms2ger]

Or our test servers during California working hours

15:40:48 [jgraham]

Really?

15:41:20 [jgraham]

That's one problem I don't recall seeing :)

15:42:10 [Ms2ger]

Maybe your test servers weren't written in the nineties :)

15:43:38 [Ms2ger]

krisk, anything else about Microsoft's submissions?

15:44:13 [krisk]

I also submitted some sandbox tests, which have another problem...

15:44:58 [krisk]

If you are familiar with the sandbox attribute one feature is that the sandbox content can't run script

15:45:45 [krisk]

So for some of the sandbox tests I had to make the self describing tests

15:46:38 [jgraham]

Sounds reasonable

15:46:48 [krisk]

Though for ones that do run script I used the test harness

15:47:23 [krisk]

The other part of sandbox attribute is pluggins

15:48:19 [krisk]

We used pdf as a pluggin since it seems to be widely available - but it's not universal (mobile)

15:48:37 [jgraham]

Uh, yeah dunno what to do with plugins

15:48:54 [jgraham]

Isn't there a NPAPI test plugin?

15:49:00 [Ms2ger]

I believe Mozilla has one

15:49:01 [jgraham]

Could we use something like that?

15:49:12 [Ms2ger]

I don't know anything about it, though

15:49:44 [Ms2ger]

I can ask around if it would be useful cross-browser

15:51:03 [jgraham]

I think we might have/use something similar but I know nothing about it. Or even if it exists really. I don't like plugins :)

15:51:30 [krisk]

I'm open to using something else as long as it works on Windows

15:52:05 [Ms2ger]

I'm open to anything as long as it works on Windows, Linux, and OSX

15:52:08 [Ms2ger]

(Picky!)

15:53:28 [krisk]

I just wanted to raise awareness on why a test uses pdf

15:54:01 [jgraham]

Sure. But I think depending on an external plugin that we can't put in hg is a bug

15:54:20 [krisk]

agree

15:54:40 [Ms2ger]

I'll report to the list if I figure out something about Mozilla's plugin

15:55:32 [krisk]

thanks

15:55:40 [krisk]

shall we adjorn?

15:56:09 [Ms2ger]

Infraware submitted testharness.js-using tests, btw

15:56:17 [Ms2ger]

But the email didn't make it to the list

15:56:35 [Ms2ger]

I emailed plh about that

15:56:36 [krisk]

good to hear

15:56:41 [krisk]

RRSAgent, make logs public

15:58:35 [krisk]

rrsagent, generate minutes

15:58:35 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/23-htmlt-minutes.html krisk

16:01:51 [Zakim]

-krisk

16:01:52 [Zakim]

HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has ended

16:01:53 [Zakim]

Attendees were krisk

16:18:31 [Ms2ger]

Present+ Ms2ger jgraham

17:52:20 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #htmlt