W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

Minutes, 21 Jan 2009 CSS WG telcon

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:08:36 +0100
Message-ID: <1068499871.20090121190836@w3.org>
To: www-style@w3.org

Hello www-style,

 The minutes are at

and below as text for trackbot. No new actions were assigned at this meeting. 

                             CSS WG telcon

21 Jan 2009

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/21-css-irc


          _jdaggett, arronei, glazou, plinss, emilyw, Elika, Hakon,
          ChrisL, Bert, SteveZ, David_Baron, sylvaing, alexmog




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]CSS 2.1 Test suite
         2. [5]Berts question on new release
         3. [6]JLTF
         4. [7]June f2f location and date
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

   <jdaggett> +1.415.738.aaaa is jdaggett

   <glazou> aaah

   <glazou> is there someone else on the call ? It's all silent here

   <glazou> no, a mac kbd :)

   <jdaggett> heh

   <glazou> I switched to the bright side of the force

   <glazou> ;)

   <jdaggett> very good!

   <glazou> as soon as they're not ancient

   <scribe> Scribe: Chris

   <scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL

CSS 2.1 Test suite

   <fantasai> Arron: We're almost done on our end, and we're starting
   to upload files to the review server.

   arron: nearing completion of our testsuite and bugun uploading to
   review server. approx 7k files need to be reviewed
   ... ned to share the effort

   <dbaron> dbaron has joineed #css

   Daniel: How long did that take to write?

   Arron: About 3 months
   ... expect 5-6 months to review

   Daniel: Coverage?

   Arron: Not chapter 13, assume Melinda and HP have that covered


   <fantasai> Glazou: This test suite is the highest priority of the
   working group

   Daniel: Release of CSS 2.1 is highest charter proiority. Each
   organisation needs to contribute or else this will never happen

   Hakon: This is a public review surely

   Elika: Difficult to coordinate public review
   ... how to track stus of individual tests,track tests and comments
   and status.
   ... previously used mailing list, ok for low volume but not for a
   ton of tests
   ... needs a comment tracking system for individual tests
   ... Peter and I designed such a syste but its not been built

   David: There are different types of review needed. Will not get all
   types on all tests

   Daniel: Agree

   David: Useful to have public review anythingthey want, but need
   comment tracking and fixing in a timely manner so we dont get
   duplicate comments too much

   Arron: No problem with timely update to each file

   Daniel: maybe a bugzilla with a bug per test

   Elika: Its a lot of overhead. Wiki has less overhead per test, still
   a lot of hassle. Often need to comment on multiple tests
   ... tests come in sets, often a comment applies to multiple tests

   Daniel: technical side is less important, needs to be efficient
   enough that all in WG can contribute to the reviews

   David: What VCS is being used?
   ... maybe allow people to post patches using a distributed VCS

   Elika: Its using subversion at the moment

   Hakon: Could we use media wiki?

   Daniel: Subversion has command line plus extensions for MacOS,
   Windows etc
   ... eg TortoiseSVN etc. Anyone should be able to use it

   Chris: Yes, SVG is a good idea

   Hakon: Need to be able to add comments without changingthe files

   <sylvaing> technology is not as hard as figuring out how and when a
   testcase has been reviewed imo

   Peter: So we designed a system to do that, database

   <szilles> Chris: tests are written in XML with list of statuses and
   authoring metadata

   <szilles> Chris: we used Tracker to deal with comments, as Elika
   says this was inefficient for multitest comments

   <szilles> Chris: we used CVS for the test cases

   Hakon: Could do like sorce files with comments at the top to
   describe changes

   Bert: might break some tests
   ... Need simple review. Most tests likely correct

   Daniel: No, because from selectors we saw that the initially
   plausible tests ended up with many small changes

   Hakon: Get www-style to help and get review comments on those which
   are wrong

   David: Hard is everyone passes a test but its still wrong

   Chris: Yes that sort of test is hard to catch

   David: Need to link specific issues to affected tests

   Steve: One way is to run them against implementations that are known
   bad. if they stil pass there is an issue

   Elika: A wiki has too much overhead, and performance issues with
   that many tests.
   ... so options are bugzilla, tracker, or build something (if done

   David: Not convinced the mail list would fail

   Elika: Its failing already to track all tests.

   David; "has been reviewed already" is not really a binary state

   Bert: Need some criterion to move it to the public site

   David: Judgement call based on how long tests are around, comfort

   Bert: Peole only say about tests with problems, not tests they
   thought were fine

   <sylvaing> oops. never mind :)

   Daniel: In Selectors test suite this was not an issue. if over
   several months no-one reported a problem, it still goes in the test

   Chris: Sometimes approved tests have bugs filed on them and are
   withdrawn or fixed. its like shipping software

   Arron: prefer bugzilla over wiki or a mail list
   ... can raise a bug on a range of tests eg background-*
   ... thats how we do it internally, in a database

   Daniel: So do you open a new bug for all reviewed tests?

   Arron: No, only failed ones

   Daniel: But then you do not know which tests have even been looked

   Elika: Could use bugzilla to track problems but a wiki page where
   people can put their names against specific tests as being ok

   Daniel: Good compromise I think. This is very important, everyone
   shoudl commit some time to review them

   David: Would like to propose patches and commit fixes, do i need
   permission? Or do it and log that it was done?

   Arron: need to be updated somehow

   <Bert> (Wiki... or just an HTML page under CVS, the same CVS as the
   tests themselves?)

   <glazou> isn't it [9]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/CSS/CSS2.1-test-suite/

      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/CSS/CSS2.1-test-suite/

   Peter: Tests currently in SVN

   <fantasai> [10]http://test.csswg.org/svn/

     [10] http://test.csswg.org/svn/

   <glazou> ok

   David: Multiple reports of errors and the tests not changing is
   discouraging for further effort by the public

   <plinss> or [11]http://svn.csswg.org/test/

     [11] http://svn.csswg.org/test/

   Hakon: yes. Also for 7k files we need a map overview of the overall

   <plinss> and [12]http://svn.csswg.org/viewvc/

     [12] http://svn.csswg.org/viewvc/

   Hakon: very useful to have a tool, eg in OOXML and OF they had this
   same problem

   Elika: We have plans for a system but lack time and budget to build

   Peter: i get time here and there but not enough

   Hakon: Don't know anyone at Opera who could build that system

   Daniel: Dont want to be stuck where we have tests but can't move
   forward as we want new tools. Have already reviewed tests with no
   svn, no wiki and it still worked. We need to start. in the worst
   case a maillost ise nough, with good subject lines

   s/isenough/is enough/

   Hakon: So if someone says a thousand tests have a given error

   Arron: Then I would fix them and commit in the next few weeks

   David: Please encourage bug reporters to submit patches as well

   Hakon: OK as long as the patches are tracked

   Elika: SVN does that

   Hakon: So anyone on www-style can make patches?

   Daniel: Make, or apply, patches?

   Hakon: i meant commit

   Elika: So they would need svn acces, not an issue

   Hakon: if we get a crank then we can revert their changes

   Elika: So send ok patches and you get SVN access?

   David: Somewhere in that area. establishing trust after some good
   submission on the mailing list

   Arron: no issue withanyone on the WG having SVN access straight

   Daniel: Complex bugs would be discussed on the list first of course

   Hakon: What we are not recording is the "ok" remarks

   Chris: Elika mentioned a wiki page overview

   Daniel: Mailing list is better, just say what has been looked at

   Elika: hard to get an overview that way

   Daniel: Not going to block the test suite forever. if a trusted
   review has happened then we go ahead. its trust, not number of

   hakon: But we need to track who has reviewed which test

   Chris: yes you need to always log the revision number of each test

   Elika so suppose we use the mail list for nowe tosend in reviews and
   Arron fixes them

   Danile: OK as long as there are positive reviews as well as bug

   Elika: OK so needs test names in subject line

   Peter: Our system uses directory structure , svn allows files to be
   moved so a test can be moved to indicate status

   Chris: Thats a big advantage of SVN over CVS

   Elika: Moving files does break URIs

   Daniel: Lets get started with the mailing list to get started

   Peter: Will work on system as time allows

   Hakon: Existing documentation on how to review?

   <fantasai> [13]http://wiki.csswg.org/test

     [13] http://wiki.csswg.org/test

   Peter: See wiki

   <dbaron> CSS2.1-test-suite/incoming/microsoft $ find . -name "*.xht"
   | wc -l

   <dbaron> 6455

   <dbaron> Are these the 7000 tests we're talking about?

   Daniel: Please tell the mailing list where the documentation is
   ... Tests are all xht?

   <arronei> Yes those are the beginning of the 7000 tests there are
   still more I need to upload

   Elika: Thats the filename that Tantek and Hixie decided on. OK as
   long as server serves them with correct media type

   <plinss> Browsable tests: [14]http://test.csswg.org/source/

     [14] http://test.csswg.org/source/

Berts question on new release

   <dbaron> arronei, are the ~700 tests from a year or two ago included
   in those?

   Bert: Current CR is 18 months od, lots of errata. good to ipublish a
   new version with all errata incliuded, and have an empty erratum
   list again. Suggest publish another CR, no status change just an

   Chris: +1 to that, much easier to read and avoids duplicate bug

   Arron: Are there diffs?

   Bert: Yes, member only but we could publish it. Not guaranteed to be
   valid HTML due to the tool used
   ... no problem

   zaki, who is here?

   Daniel: Jon had an agenda item on JLTF


   <glazou> jdagget

   John: Coold we get an afternoon for this?

   (general agreement, Weds pm)

   John: Also please send email if there are things that are needed

   <jdaggett> [15]http://tinyurl.com/baddirections

     [15] http://tinyurl.com/baddirections

   Chris: Is there a meeting registration form?


   26. Turn left at Kalakaua Ave

   1.9 mi

   27. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean

   Entering Japan

   3,879 mi

   28. Continue straight

June f2f location and date

   Chris: Two different dates were being discussed. Which is the
   favoured one?

   Daniel: June 3-5 or 24-26

   Steve: June 3-5 not good for me

   <jdaggett> jdaggett: either is fine

   Hakon: Can't do second date

   Hotels easier for the earlier dates, due to summer breaks

   Daniel; Travel may be cheaper for earlier date too

   Elika: Earlier date easier for me

   Daniel: OK so we will go with 3-5 June. Sorry, Steve

   Resolved: meeting is 3-5 June at Sophia hosted by ERCIM


   <Bert> (Summer holidays in France start July 2. Pentecost is Jun 1.)

   <plinss> +47 was howcome

   <glazou> ChrisL: :I started keeping track of attendees

   <fantasai> the other one was then probably me

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 18:08:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:23 UTC