W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > March 2010

[minutes] 20100309 HTML Test Suite Task Force

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:42:26 -0500
To: public-html-testsuite@w3.org
Message-Id: <1268152946.4570.14.camel@chacal>
Available at 
 http://www.w3.org/2010/03/09-htmlt-minutes.html

Text version:
 
                      HTML Test Suite task force

09 Mar 2010

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2010Mar/0003.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/09-htmlt-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Plh, Kris, Paul

   Regrets
   Chair
          Kris

   Scribe
          plh

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Reviewing Test Case submission
         2. [6]How to Report an Issue in the Test Suite
         3. [7]Review and Approval Process
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Reviewing Test Case submission

   "Send email to the public-html-testsuite mailing list describing the
   test cases you are submitting as well as giving permission for their
   use as described in the licensing section above"

   [9]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/testgrants2-200409/

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/testgrants2-200409/

   plh: folks need to go through the grant of license for legal reasons

   kris: we'll watch the mailing list and tell people to fill the form
   if necessary

   Send email to the public-html-testsuite mailing list describing the
   test cases you are submitting as well as giving permission for their
   use as described in the licensing section above, using the grant of
   license.

   (that's the new sentence)

   plh: we're covered for participants of the working group already. no
   need to fill the form.

   kris: so I can commit tests directly into mercurial?

   plh: yes

   kris: what about licensing information?

   <paulc> Can we reword the following: " For example you should treat
   all browsers the same, no special logic, test dependencies should be
   supported by all browsers."

   <paulc> For example you should treat all browsers the same. Your
   tests should not use any special logic for a specific browser."

   <scribe> ACTION: plh to follow up on licensing information in test
   suite files [recorded in
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/09-htmlt-minutes.html#action01]

   <paulc> From [11]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Submission/

     [11] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Submission/

   Paul: [proposed wording for last sentence]

   Kris: accepted

How to Report an Issue in the Test Suite

   [12]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Feedback/

     [12] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Feedback/

   plh: we need to give directions on the kind of information needed in
   order to get proper feedback
   ... such as which test and which version of the test

   kris: seems fine to me

   paul: why don't they file a bugzilla report on the test suite
   instead?

   kris: would be fine

   paul: it does require an account, but thinks about the wording in
   the working drafts.
   ... the more people that do this by filling bugs, the easier it will
   be.
   ... we should treat the test suite as a product of the working group
   ... and if we discover that there is an error in the spec, we can
   file a bugzilla on the spec that points to the bugzilla on the test

   <krisk> OK - I'll update the wiki with this information

   kris: not sure why bugzilla didn't use my w3c credentials

   paul: w3c isn't using a federated identity system

   plh: correct, our system folks are implementing one (mercurial is an
   example of the future system)

   paul: there are in fact two bugs for the test suite in there
   ... reuse text from the working draft status section

Review and Approval Process

   [13]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Approval/

     [13] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Approval/

   Paul: question: "Anyone in the HTML working group with the ability
   to read and understand the spec and a thorough understanding of how
   to write a good test case can review additions and changes to the
   Approved collection."
   ... how do they declare their position?
   ... is there some sort of voting mechanism?
   ... how to we record the process?

   Kris: I would send a CfC on a set of test cases?

   <paulc> Is there a min bar ie. at least one reviewer?

   Paul: so no minimum bar to have at least one person to review the
   tests?

   Kris: I'd like to work that way: someone sends a test, get some
   feedback, make some changes, and then request for approval. the
   third party would say "looks good"

   paul: the page doesn't say that
   ... btw, is it the task force that approves the tests or does the TF
   need to go back to the WG?
   ... best is to have a proposed mechanism, and ask permission from
   the WG. after that, you'll be ok.
   ... but you have to anticipate that somebody in the WG is going to
   be reluctant to engage in the TF and start a thread on the WG list
   instead
   ... the chairs can then assign the matter to the TF
   ... polish the 3 pages, then at some point, ask approval from the WG
   about the procedures established in the TF
   ... but the text needs to be more explicit

   kris: agreed. needs more of the how, not just the who

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: plh to follow up on licensing information in test
   suite files [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/09-htmlt-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 16:42:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 March 2010 16:42:28 GMT