IRC log of htmlt on 2011-09-20
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:04:23 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #htmlt
- 15:04:23 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-htmlt-irc
- 15:05:34 [krisk]
- Agenda -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Sep/0007.html
- 15:05:57 [krisk]
- If anyone wants to dial into conf call speak up...
- 15:06:09 [krisk]
- I suspect we'll just be on IRC like normal...
- 15:07:31 [krisk]
- Agenda Item #1 Check for bugs on Approved Tests
- 15:07:58 [krisk]
- bug 14191?
- 15:08:13 [krisk]
- http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14191
- 15:08:37 [krisk]
- This was opened by ms2ger...
- 15:08:44 [Ms2ger]
- Philip is finishing his PhD, and won't have time to look at it in the next few weeks
- 15:08:46 [jgraham]
- Philip is finishing his PhD so he is busy for a few weeks
- 15:08:51 [jgraham]
- Dammit
- 15:09:05 [jgraham]
- At least we have a consistent story
- 15:09:38 [krisk]
- I'm open to having someone convert the tests
- 15:09:54 [Ms2ger]
- I can do that, but I don't want to do it without Philip's okay
- 15:10:37 [jgraham]
- There isn't any problem with waiting a bit
- 15:10:38 [krisk]
- I don't think it makes sense to remove them from the approved folder
- 15:11:01 [krisk]
- Though we should set a date when we think it's reasonable to convert the tests
- 15:11:22 [jgraham]
- If Philip's PhD funding is the way I expect, he probably has to finish very soon, so I don't think this will drap on
- 15:11:25 [jgraham]
- *drag
- 15:11:36 [jgraham]
- Or at least he will need a different excuse for being busy
- 15:12:03 [krisk]
- Ok then lets plan on having these get converted at some point
- 15:12:56 [krisk]
- We also need to move the getElementsByClassname tests to the Dom core WebApps suite
- 15:13:18 [krisk]
- I see that jgraham is OK with this looking at the list
- 15:13:53 [krisk]
- http://w3c-test.org/webapps/DOMCore/tests/submissions would be the location
- 15:14:57 [krisk]
- Did you still want to do this ms2ger?
- 15:15:08 [Ms2ger]
- Doing that right now, actually
- 15:15:24 [krisk]
- You should create an Opera folder since they created the tests
- 15:16:58 [krisk]
- Let move on to agenda item #2
- 15:17:00 [krisk]
- "Appcache test format - testing without a network"
- 15:18:17 [krisk]
- http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#offline
- 15:18:46 [krisk]
- Some testing of the feature is going to need a different approach than just using testharness.js
- 15:19:44 [krisk]
- The api and events should be fine - but actually checking if the files come from the server vs the 'cache' is a bit more complex
- 15:20:31 [krisk]
- It's possible to create a self-describing test...
- 15:21:14 [krisk]
- Though I wanted to see if you were intrested in these tests and/or had another option
- 15:22:01 [krisk]
- Does anyone have any objections or suggestions?
- 15:22:11 [Ms2ger]
- Don't know anything about it myself
- 15:24:32 [krisk]
- Microsoft submitted one test for this feature http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/appcache/appcache_000.htm
- 15:24:59 [krisk]
- Though it's very simple...but it's a start
- 15:25:25 [krisk]
- Firefox seems to support window.applicationCache FWIW
- 15:26:31 [Ms2ger]
- I assume we have tests
- 15:26:37 [krisk]
- Moving on to Agenda item #3 New Test Submissions
- 15:27:33 [krisk]
- Microsoft submitted some history api tests
- 15:27:43 [krisk]
- http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/history/history_000.htm
- 15:28:33 [krisk]
- Though we don't pass them all we believe some of the tests we fail are correct per the spec and want to fix them in Internet Explorer 10
- 15:29:34 [krisk]
- If you think the tests are wrong feel free to make a comment on the list
- 15:30:10 [krisk]
- Seems like we can get this feature to be pretty interoperable given it's support in various browsers at this point
- 15:30:13 [jgraham]
- They look plausible in that Opera passes them all apart from two fails unrelated to the history API ;)
- 15:30:48 [jgraham]
- I am still looking for review of the Opera-submitted history API tests
- 15:31:44 [jgraham]
- They also reveal a problem with some changes Aryeh made to testharness.js
- 15:31:44 [Ms2ger]
- jgraham, so if you review Microsoft's, maybe krisk can get someone to review yours? :)
- 15:32:03 [jgraham]
- Ms2ger: Indeed, that could work :)
- 15:32:12 [krisk]
- I'll take a peek
- 15:32:27 [jgraham]
- (they are not mine personally, I hasten to add)
- 15:33:46 [krisk]
- Microsoft also submitted a 'dat' file for the parser
- 15:34:02 [jgraham]
- I would like to take this oppertunity to whine at the continued non-existence of a review tool for hg
- 15:34:09 [jgraham]
- krisk: Pointer?
- 15:34:29 [jgraham]
- krisk: That should really be added to the html5lib repository under the MIT license
- 15:35:04 [jgraham]
- krisk: If that works for you, I can help you get write access to that repo
- 15:35:57 [Ms2ger]
- Peter Linss' tool is in production, I believe
- 15:36:19 [Ms2ger]
- We should get it set up for HTML
- 15:37:00 [krisk]
- Do you have a pointer to the tool?
- 15:37:38 [jgraham]
- Is his tool at all sutiable for HTML?
- 15:37:38 [Ms2ger]
- http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/
- 15:37:46 [Ms2ger]
- No idea
- 15:37:58 [jgraham]
- I got the impression it was designed with an entirely differnet set of use cases in mind
- 15:38:32 [jgraham]
- Principally allowing third parties to collect test results to produce implementation reports
- 15:38:55 [jgraham]
- With a bunch of extra test metadata stuff
- 15:39:09 [jgraham]
- I didn't get the impression it was going to be a kickass code-review tool
- 15:39:18 [jgraham]
- Which is what I really want
- 15:39:24 [jgraham]
- Or at least a mediocre one
- 15:41:09 [jgraham]
- So it falls below the level of useful so far
- 15:41:17 [jgraham]
- For code review at least
- 15:41:20 [krisk]
- If someone moves this to the w3c I can take a peek
- 15:42:19 [krisk]
- ...seems like a good question for plh
- 15:43:36 [krisk]
- <@jgraham> krisk: If that works for you, I can help you get write access to that repo
- 15:44:20 [krisk]
- I don't think anyone from Microsoft will be submitting stuff to a non w3c Hg server
- 15:45:55 [jgraham]
- Are you prepared to submit it under the MIT license so that other people can copy it across to the other server?
- 15:46:22 [jgraham]
- It would be a great pity if there was fragmentation in the parser testsuite
- 15:46:23 [krisk]
- I believe the w3c test suite license allows for that (it's the MIT/BSD license)
- 15:46:41 [krisk]
- It's part of the royalty free part of the w3c
- 15:46:42 [jgraham]
- I thought it was BSD/W3C license
- 15:48:17 [krisk]
- I'm not a lawyer but happy to ask the w3c for clarity
- 15:48:51 [jgraham]
- The wiki says "The test suite is licensed under both the W3C Test Suite License and the 3-clause BSD License."
- 15:49:01 [jgraham]
- That might be wrong ofc
- 15:49:23 [jgraham]
- Anyway, please ask w3c staff
- 15:50:20 [krisk]
- sounds good
- 15:51:19 [krisk]
- Also if you follow the webapps WG Microsoft also submitted some tests for workers, indexed db and web sockets
- 15:51:34 [jgraham]
- Yes, I saw that. Thanks!
- 15:51:50 [krisk]
- If you have feedback on the tests being correct feel free to send it to the web-apps list
- 15:52:24 [krisk]
- Also Microsoft would like to facilitate getting a backend setup on the w3c for testing websockets
- 15:53:08 [krisk]
- I plan on attending TPAC so this might be a good agenda items for the webapps WG
- 15:53:58 [krisk]
- Anne (from opera) was also asking for XHR2 tests since it looks like he is the only one submitting tests
- 15:54:08 [jgraham]
- I should be at TPAC too; I can organise to be in the WebApps meeting
- 15:54:56 [krisk]
- Shall we adjourn?
- 15:54:59 [Ms2ger]
- Sure
- 15:56:03 [krisk]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:56:13 [krisk]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 15:56:13 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-htmlt-minutes.html krisk
- 17:20:51 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #htmlt
- 17:25:33 [Ms2ger]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 17:25:33 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items