15:03:07 RRSAgent has joined #htmlt
15:03:07 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/14-htmlt-irc
15:03:37 Here is the agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2012Aug/0003.html
15:03:59 Though it might be good to talk about github mirror as well
15:04:29 This was setup a while back by jgraham (it's just a mirror, no submits)
15:05:27 Agenda Item #1 Bugs on Approved Tests
15:05:48 Here is the tinyurl link - http://tinyurl.com/6mvghxx
15:06:09 with tmpsantos we should look at his bug/update as well
15:06:41 see -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18522
15:08:15 Let's look at that update first
15:11:26 Indeed it looks like a typo
15:13:14 Though no one passes this test looking at other browsers...
15:13:59 krisk: it passes now at webkit :)
15:14:12 Maybe we don't actually understand the intent of this test?
15:14:32 the canvas element at this test is not attached to the DOM
15:14:54 1 sec
15:15:08 let me open the test here again
15:15:50 so when using relative unit at this particular case
15:16:03 I'm looking at the w3c spec for why this should change from the set (ctx2.font = 1000% serif) to the get ctx2.font = 100px serif)
15:16:09 it should be applied using the defaults as reference
15:16:47 ctx is dangling at this test case
15:17:08 it is just there because of the way the test runner/harness was designed
15:18:58 I'm looking at http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/#canvastext
15:20:31 this is the important bit
15:20:32 "When the 'font-weight' component is set to the relative values 'bolder' and 'lighter', these must be interpreted relative to the computed value of the 'font-weight' property of the corresponding canvas element at the time that the attribute is set. If the computed values are undefined for a particular case (e.g. because the canvas element is not in a Document), then the relative keywords must be interpreted relative to the normal-weight 10px sans-seri
15:20:33 f default."
15:21:09 sorry, actually just the last sentence
15:23:38 Yep I see that...
15:24:52 That looks correct
15:24:59 does anyone else object?
15:26:03 jgraham have you looked at this bug/fix?
15:26:17 ms2ger looked already according to bugzilla
15:28:18 krisk: No, I didn't look
15:29:10 It looks correct from my point of view (though no interop in browsers today, though a fix exists in some version of webkit)
15:29:45 We have one more bug as well https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18505
15:30:02 Let's look at this while james takes a peek at 18522
15:30:35 krisk: