W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > October to December 2011

minutes of HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 2

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 09:25:56 +0900
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111105002555.GA34470@sideshowbarker>

HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 -- part 2

     * Topics
         1. W3C Document license
         2. HTML.NEXT
         3. Testing TF work and plans
         4. Testing HTML

W3C Document license

   Jeff: discussion of the document license predates my arrival at W3C

   <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14696] New: This is no longer true: "The end
   date is encoded as one day after the last date of the event because
   in the iCalendar format, end dates are exclusive, not inclusive"
   — so remove ...value="2007-10-20">19...
   ov/0299.html> 4** [Bug 14696] This is no longer true: "The end date
   is encoded as one day after the last date of the event because in
   the iCalendar format,


   Jeff: so I urge others here to jump in and correct me if needed
   ... So, several years ago, the HTML WG determined that the W3C
   document license did not work for them
   ... and the group came up with a list of 11 use cases that were not
   possible with the current W3C document license
   ... the chairs of the HTML WG then brought that list to the W3C Team
   ... and the W3C Team took that list of use cases to the W3C Advisory
   ... the W3C AC agreed with the majority of the use cases, but not
   with the use cases related to so-called "forking"
   ... which put the Team sort of between a rock and a hard place
   ... it turned out that coming up a a suitable license was very
   ... this task was handed over to the W3C PSIG
   ... which did an analysis and proposed a license that they believed
   covered 9 of the 11 use cases
   ... then later in 2010 we decided that we needed to try again
   ... and in the end we came up with 3 candidate licenses
   ... the three licenses try to address the use cases and at the same
   time address the AC's concerns about "forking"
   ... I have not doubt that the PSIG left no stone unturned
   ... the chairs of the HTML WG created a poll
   ... in which they asked the group to consider the 3 PSIG-proposed
   licenses, and also 2 other more-permissive licenses
   ... the results of the poll were that a majority of the HTML WG
   members responded that they could not live with any of the 3
   PSIG-proposed licenses
   ... for the other more-permissive licenses, the majority of the HTML
   WG responded to say that they could live with them, though there was
   a significant minority that said they could not
   ... So, where we are at now is that we do not have any plans to
   change the W3C document license
   ... but in another decision, we did great Community Groups with a
   more permissive document license

   Marcos: we have seen an alternative solution, which is that editors
   publish their editor's drafts under "public domain" outside of the

   Jeff: we are on record as supporting a permissive license
   ... but the Membership told us by an overwhelming majority (80%) is
   that when you are on the W3C Rec-track, they feel that needs to not
   be forkable

   Marcos: We have shared documents, and if the W3C doesn't provide a
   more permissive license, we are still going to be [publishing
   versions of the same specs outside of the W3C under a more
   permissive license]

   <KevinMarks> you can't prevent forking by fiat

   anne: it seems wrong to me that a secret club behind a Member-only
   wall say No to us and tell us what we can and cannot doe
   ... there is not opportunity for discourse there

   <KevinMarks> all you can prevent is the spec representing
   implementations that have forked it

   Jeff: I hear what you are saying. There is no "opaque wall" if you
   are part of a Member org, though I understand that it's different if
   you are an Invited Experts

   [Jeff asks how many people in the room are IEs and how many are from
   Member orgs]

   Jeff: The chartering of Activities go through the AC as well

   anne: The issue is that many of the members in the AC are not even
   members of this group

   tantek: as a rep of one of those member companies, I can sympathize
   ... I've also been an invited expert

   scribe: there is the entire AC that votes on these issues
   ... but if you look at the participants in this group
   ... I can firmly say that as a Member, Mozilla does support a
   forking license for the spec

   Jeff: part of my philosophy of change is to recognize where there
   are huge barriers to change, and to find other areas where the
   barriers are not huge, and work there
   ... so one of the reasons we create the Community Groups was to
   address this issue

   anne: It would be nice if we were given reasons for why the AC said
   ... the AC is advisory
   ... and if the Team feels that W3C should have a permissive license,
   the AC can be overruled

   DaveSinger: I think one rationale was that they want a single
   specification to reference
   ... I don't think we would ever have a case where even if there is a
   moderately hostile fork, the W3C does not pursue enforcing the W3C
   document license
   ... so the horse has already left the barn

   Tim: one argument is, I want people to say that they are putting
   their time and work into the [common place at W3C] where we have
   gotten together to do the work
   ... and we are all committed to working together at W3C to work on
   our specs here, not planning to then take them off somewhere else

   <KevinMarks> the possibility of forking is what provides the social
   pressure to actually agree.

   Tim: the case with forking of code is different, whereas with
   standards, [the argument for forking] does not hold as well
   ... I think it's important to not fork but also important to have
   the right to fork
   ... so these are conflicting needs
   ... I agree with Dave Singer that the license [does not have effect
   on what actually happens in practice]
   ... so I'm not sure we need to continue spending a lot more energy
   on this

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)

   TIm: we should be focusing on doing our actual spec work

   Sam: This is perhaps something we can address with HTML.Next
   ... so maybe we can focus on that constructively

   Kai: Companies have one very strong requirement, which is stability
   ... when you cannot rely on the standards to actually be standards,
   that is a huge issue
   ... W3C through its process guarantees stability
   ... my recommendation to my own company is that we have to
   completely ignore anything that comes out of the WHATWG
   ... just breaking out of the process because you don't like it is
   [not good]

   Jeff: I do not work for any of the companies that didn't support
   ... but I know some of the reasons that we given
   ... I heard some companies saying that they do not want forking
   because we want one Web
   ... they said they don't want to see the Web get fractured
   ... for example, if some companies said they wanted a Web that has
   DRM features that are not part of a W3C standard
   ... I also agree with what David said, that maybe we need to do more
   educate, to help companies understand permissive licensing
   ... and I understand that Tim also supports doing such education

   tantek: we all want one Web
   ... I think there are maybe some disagreements about how we get
   ... in a past role, I was at Microsoft, and there was a standard
   called DVB-HTML
   ... and what happened to that standard?

   Jeff: It died.

   <KevinMarks> lets not even mention WAP

   tantek: right. It's doomed to fail. In the long run , the one that
   survives in the one that's supported by reputation

   <markw> CE-HTML is very much alive in OIPF, HbbTV etc.

   tantek: I want to praise the W3C for the Community Groups
   ... it is our intent to develop the Fullscreen API in a Community
   Group with a forking license
   ... and it is more likely that for [new work we do] we are going to
   choose to pursue those in a Community Group

   Jeff: one small clarification, I was neither taking a position for
   or against forking licenses

   scribe: I was sharing what I heard
   ... this is consensus-driven org
   ... we saw a consensus to provide a more permissive license for
   Community Groups

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)

   scribe: but we did not yet see a consensus to provide a more
   permissive license for Working Groups
   ... but that could change and we could revisit it

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)

   <krisk> scribe: krisk


   <plh> --> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next HTML next wiki


   <pimpbot> Title: HTML/next - W3C Wiki (at www.w3.org)

   mikesmith: This meeting is to talk about what features we could add
   to the next version of html

   samruby: the wiki is a location to store and track items we could
   potentially do in HTML.NEXT
   ... this was last updated in june

   tantek: when we re-charted can we move the wiki?

   paulcotton: Can you give a rational why to move?

   tantek: it'll lower the cost to collaborate with other w3c groups
   (less logins..etc..)

   mikesmith: all you need is a w3c user/password for w3c wiki's
   ... though html requires a HTML WG account to update the html wiki

   karl: the main wiki was initially created for SW community, "forked"
   by QA WG, then more general including documentation. Some people
   were not comfortable using the wiki

   samruby: Is the content updated on the HTML.NEXT wiki?

   <MikeSmith> a shorter list of possible HTML.Next features from my
   recent presentation:


   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Update (at www.w3.org)

   davidslinger: these are all good items - though we should also start
   to add issues that we have with the current HTML5 spec to this wiki

   Mikesmith: we have a bugzilla to track html.next bugs

   <tantek> per mikesmith's point about w3c's wiki being more
   open/accessible - I see that as an advantage.

   slinger: can we add a link to this from the wiki?

   samruby: I'm not concerned with where it's at rather that we have it
   all in one place



   <pimpbot> Title: Components for HTML.next (at www.w3.org)



   <pimpbot> Title: Bug List (at www.w3.org)

   jamesgraham: to add some of these we'll need components

   <pimpbot> Title: Components for HTML.next (at www.w3.org)

   shelly: I have another feature - make sure that all aria roles are
   in the spec

   samruby: can you either open a bug or on the wik - indifferent which
   type, but it should exist

   anne: components are in webapps, but it should use the parser so it
   should be html

   plh: web intents - wants a new element, html may want to look into
   this as well for HTML.NEXT

   samruby: they are creating an new element?

   <tantek> let's not rathole on intents please

   jamesgraham: if they are breaking the parser that seems like a very
   bad idea

   <plh> --> http://webintents.org/ Web Intents


   mikesmith: they don't have spec document, rather it's just a

   <tantek> mikesmith: I don't think he needed the intent element, he
   could have used the meta element

   mikesmith: though they are using a new element it could easily be a
   meta element

   samruby: bugzilla and wiki seems very light...

   mikesmith: see the link that mike posted about potential html.next



   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Update (at www.w3.org)

   mikesmith: input mode?
   ... mobile browsers seem to have this use case
   ... one item that hixie removed from html5, is the datagrid
   ... some media items...
   ... playback statistics
   ... api media additions

   samruby: not only datagrid is on the wiki

   kimberly: if we start to talk about forms and mobile
   ... autocorrect is bad for password

   slinger: this is already be taken care of another WG
   ... I don't think it's good to think about next features, rather we
   should be think about how to get the project launched in the best
   possible way

   adrian: I like to note about a feature I added that's on the wiki

   anne: we should not be thinking about html.next as a big step, html5
   was done incrementally
   ... I suspect html.next will also do the same thing...
   ... components may change how we think about interaction with
   existing and new elements created by libs
   ... we may want to bring some common lib elements back
   ... I want to see incremental progress

   jamesgraham: we should publish one a year with a small number of
   items that are completed rather than a 15 yeare cycle

   adrian: I agree with that notion

   plh: I also agree with james

   samruby: any more items?

   paulcotton: let me replay some of the items that came up with at
   barcamp dealing with getting specs out faster

   <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14697] New: Harmonize roles with ARIA


   paulcotton: I'd like to hear tantek view on doing future html work
   in a community group

   <tantek> +1

   paulcotton: for example webvtt

   <tantek> I agree that we should consider community groups for

   paulcotton: the organization is not getting patent protection
   because the spec takes so long
   ... by doing mondular, community groups, are ways to speed up the

   mikesmith: we have another HTML community group on editing, so we do
   have a precedence for doing html.next work in a community group

   tantek: I want to follow up with paul's comment
   ... Mozilla agrees that doing HTML.NEXT work in a community group is
   the right place

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)

   <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12715] When used to include data blocks (as
   opposed to scripts), the data must be embedded inline


   <MikeSmith> minutes for the first part of this morning are here:



   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 -- part 1 (at

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)

   <pimpbot> planet: bhueppe: Journalism in the Open: The 2011/12
   Knight-Mozilla Fellows announced


   <paulc> test

   <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14697] Harmonize roles with ARIA


Testing TF work and plans

   <paulc> Mark: Could we actually outsource the generation of tests
   for HTML5

   <eliot> scribe: eliot

   <rubys> Art: I like the idea of more directed sponsorship

   <rubys> Paulc: are we ready to outsource

   KK: up front costs to hire omeone would be high. want to minimize

   <rubys> James: we haven't built detailed test plans

   KK: test reviews have to go on. not sure where they'd come from
   ... Where would the talent come from? But it's still a possibility.
   ... Set up requirements and make clear what has to be done.

   PC: I have experience in this. XML Query test suite >25k tests
   ... missed. US Gov't wrote thousands of the tests
   ... They had some tooling that they fed the spe into to generate
   ... but also had peoplpe who were experts.

   Look for XQuery test suite W3C

   scribe: We seem to be concentrating on the browser venders. Have we
   asked everyone who's going to benefint from HTML5?



   <pimpbot> Title: XML Query Test Suite (at dev.w3.org)

   James: We focus a lot on numbers--necessary--but quality is most
   ... if we generate million tests but they don't find bugs, then
   effect is minimal.
   ... need the ones who will write evil tests.

   Ryoske: we had refactoring tests. turned out needed 10 to the 16th
   tests. No way.
   ... important to catch the bugs

   PC: XPath and XQuery tests went for core features first. Subsequent
   tests assumed the core tests worked.
   ... tests got more complex on the outer edges.

   Russel: So when do I get a gold star? How many tests do I have to

   PC: W3C had workshop to see if they should do compliance testing
   ... given nonlegal structure it's unlikely that the W3C would do it.
   W3C is not in the certification business. Implies huge otlays of
   ... Do lots of validation testing. Company would use the test and
   make a claim to their customers that they pass a certain number of

   Mark Vickers: If we get these tests done, there's potential income
   as a service.

   scribe: Lots of possible tests. If someone else runs the test, the
   legal responsibility moves.
   ... could provide regular income w/o w3c being in the certification

   Russel: Even if w3c doesn't want to be in the business, there's a
   pressing need in various ecosystem to have cert programs.
   ... If w3c is going to present hundreds of thousand of tests, who
   sets up the buckets of tests?

   PLH: are you suggestin w3c sharee that burden?

   Russel: yes

   PLH: w3c is not in the positio to do that. it will take several
   years. we have no plan.

   Russel: for home network we do, for various components we go through

   PC: the logos are expensive to create. w3c is not in that business

   Russell: We are expressing an ecosystem need

   PC: Different WGs in the W3c have gotten through rec with minimum
   required tests
   ... divide to subfeatures. Create scenarios, and test for those. Get
   same result from multiple implementations, then we're good.
   ... WGs have set criteria low and sometimes high. If you set for
   certification, you set for infinity.

   <anne> shall we write tests?

   PC: it's important to talk about what needs to be done to get out of

   plh: we rely on members to submit tests. w3c doesn't have staff for
   ... so far we are way far from the 200k numbers we'd need for html5

   Wilhelm: Many cert programs have been deliberately harmful to the
   success of the web.
   ... one group made a test suite and froze the test cases. Years
   later another client came with those test cases. They didn't agree
   with the way the web had evolved.
   ... not sure how to solve it, but cert is dangerous to the web.

   Mark: Might be some benefit for w3c providing test suites.
   ... 2nd milestone in which tests are completed?
   ... we also just need to be practical about certification. It's
   going to happen and the w3c should be involved.
   ... ideally at the infinite level, but more practical approach that
   grows over time. becomes more complete.
   ... can do this and potentially generate income for w3c.

   kk: great conversation. I think in terms of the customer.
   ... if you put a logo on something and FB doesn't work, do they
   ... It's going to take a lot more than HTML. It's bigger that HTML.
   Bigger than w3c.
   ... if you have something on a device and you want that to work for
   years, it's going to take a lot.
   ... Great place to start the discussion.
   ... PLH to pass a hat for testing resources

   Guiseppe: Not clear, is it a lack of money to close test cases?

   pc: Maybe we're not organizing in the right direction.

   plh: I told jeff i need 40 people and he said sure, give me the

   DSinger: If you're doing HTML5, you can differentiate by saying you
   do more.
   ... if everyone else contributes tests and you don't you benefit.
   ... we urgently need to talk about how people who want to get
   certified can contribute

   DBarron: CSS2.1, test suite served 2 purposes: validate spec. Let
   implementors converge.
   ... You have to stop at some point, but the test suite cont. to

   pc: You can find this on the web, the static version used for CR and
   the current contents of the repository.

   DBarron: using test suites as a yard stick. the density of coverage
   per test varies greatly.
   ... one test could be more precise than 10k other tests.
   ... Very concerned when a test is used for more than did you pass or

   Guiseppe: The are organizations interested. Sd organize and discuss:
   how to work w/o freezing a test case. and to discuss collaboration.

   MVickers: There is another group. Doing everything we can to use
   HTML5., Driving the organization towards using w3c tests and not
   another standard.
   ... will follow up and arrange for a meeting. first with Jeff and
   then a subgroup of the HTML5 group.

   kk: Members of the wg would help.

   pc: plh is on point as the w3c person to take this idea and do
   something about it.

   <jgraham> http://hoppipolla.co.uk/talks/testing/testing.html


   <pimpbot> Title: Testing (at hoppipolla.co.uk)

   pc: we'd like to get to some point where we have more people in the
   room to generate tests

Testing HTML

   Link above is to slides James is going through

   James: Who has used Mercurial? Afew. Written a test for a working
   group? Same few.

   <pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)

   To get test in so you can edit, you clne the repository.

   James: once you have the files, you can create a test
   ... a tests go into a directory
   ... we create a directory. Use your favorite editor.
   ... create the test and then commit the test locally. It's just in
   your local repository, until you push.

   <anne> "added 363 changesets with 2836 changes to 2081 files" o_O
   been a while since I looked at this

   James: to figure out what to test....quite important.

   <anne> how do I figure out what to test?

   <anne> that is, figure out what is already tested

   James: not testing conformance criteria for authors. Looking for
   implementor requirements.



   <pimpbot> Title: 4.9 Tabular data HTML5 (at www.w3.org)

   James: DOM interface has a bunch of properties. we might test for
   ... caption property on <table> isaimed at authors. Never look at
   text in green boxes.
   ... RFC2119 keyword is a tip.

   "....MUST return the first caption element that is a child of the
   table. If there aren't any, it must return NULL." This is something
   we can test.

   scribe: Writing JavaScript test: Testharness.js (link at end of

   <wilhelm> Documentation for testharness.js:


   scribe: create a function called test
   ... straightforward construction.
   ... see "Test for the Table API" in slides for code.
   ... test for two caption in forst case and no captions in the


   scribe: that is simple, can be more complex. What happens if I
   insert a caption using the DOM, etc.
   ...SteveFaulkner: Is it always OK to leave out child elements and

   James: when you're testing things you're not testing validity, so

   <krisk> If you don't have Hg installed


   <pimpbot> Title: Download - Mercurial (at mercurial.selenic.com)

   Wilhelm: Gives an indication of how many tests we need. One sentence
   and I can think of about ten things that need to be done.

   Link is to Mercurial repository. Need to get Mercurial.

   James: to find out what tests are needed, look at what's submitted,
   or reach out to testing task force
   ... to run the test, run it in the browser. It says pass or fail.
   You can add something to the assert message to make it more useful,
   but in general, pass/fail.
   ... We have a way to link tests to a section of the spec

   kk: it's a big spec. It's hard to know where it's from

   Peter: Can link to any anchor

   James: Theere's a guide to handle the tests

   <pimpbot> Title: A Method for Writing Testable Conformance
   Requirements (at www.w3.org)

   James: if you're testing rendering, there's a process on the CSS

   Are the guidelines?

   James: Not really

   plh: do we need some

   James: if the test is right that's good enough

   How to address interdependencies?

   James: General guideline is to not make test depend on things. Test
   the thing your testing only.
   ... you have to make some assumptions, but we try to make as few as

   Ryoska: Do we expect tests to restore states?

   <yosuke> s/Ryoska/Ryosuke/

   James: In general encouraged.

   DBaron: I would say that even more strongly.

   kk: there are some situations where you can't avoid it. You can
   comment that at the top of the test, if you need a clean cache or
   something like that.

   Guiseppe: aree they run in the same order?

   James: No guarantees.

   kk: they should pass in any order. No order is assumed.

   James: maybe now is a good time to stop, pick a part of the spec and
   write a test.

   kk: Memory leak. We're supposed to validate that the normative parts
   of the spec work. Not whether a feature causes a memory leak.


Michael[tm] Smith
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 00:28:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 February 2014 13:57:52 UTC