W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Updates to Selectors API

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:27:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4FDF2CDF.7030006@nokia.com>
To: ext Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 6/18/12 8:34 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> On 2012-06-18 13:57, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>> In the process, I also made a few minor editorial changes to v2 just
>>> to tidy it up.
>>>
>>> At this stage, we should be able to publish v1 as a revised CR, or
>>> possibly move it up to PR.
>>
>> I like the changes Lachlan, especially the new section 6.4.
>>
>> Although I have argued to the Advisory Committee and Advisory Board the
>> process should (under certain circumstances) permit a CR to be directly
>> re-published as a CR, that currently is not possible. Nevertheless, I
>> think it could be a bit tricky to argue to the Director in this case
>> that there were no substantive changes (e.g. the new 6.4) so my
>> recommendation is that we publish a new LCWD with the minimum 3-week
>> review period (and make sure all of the changes can be reviewed).
>
> OK. Let's get started on that process.

OK, I'll start the CfC for LC today.


>> Do you or Chaals have the interop data now (and if so, where is it)?
>> What do you think about going the LC->PR route?
>
> Opera, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and IE all pass 100% of the baseline 
> (HTML/CSS 2.1 selectors) and additional (HTML/Selectors 3) tests.
>
> Firefox, Safari and Chrome also pass 100% of the XHTML/Selectors 3 
> tests. Opera only passes 99.2% of these and IE only passes 67.7% of 
> these. However, these are additional tests that are not required to 
> declare interoperability of the API, as the failures relate more to 
> XHTML and Selectors support, rather than any particular bug with the API.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api-testsuite/
>
> Do I need to prepare some kind of formal testsuite report with the 
> results for each test?

Yes, we do need to document the spec has interoperable implementations 
(and that is typically called the "interop report"). I think we have 
considerable flexibility on the format of the data. Here are a couple of 
examples:

* Cam's Element Traversal
<http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/ElementTraversal/index.html>

* Marcos' widget spec
<http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/>

> However, with the recent change from NAMESPACE_ERR to SYNTAX_ERR, this 
> test suite will need to be updated with new tests, so this will likely 
> delay PR for a little bit longer.

OK, that's good to know. The LC's status section should include the URI 
of the interop report although that document can be empty when the LC is 
published. (I think the status section should also mention the group 
expects to skip CR and go directly to PR.)


>>> We can also publish v2. as a new WD.
>>
>> If you want me to start a CfC to publish a new WD of v2, just let me 
>> know.
>
> Yes please.

Will do.

-Thanks, Art
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 13:28:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT