W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2010

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-09-22

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:02:00 -0700
Message-ID: <4CA89AE8.20107@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:

   - Discussed CSS2.1 Implementation Reports, how to get them done,
     what's necessary to be done, etc.

   - RESOLVED: Adopt CSS3 CR exit criteria for CSS2.1 so that we can
               use beta builds

====== Full minutes below ======

Present:
   David Baron
   Arron Eicholz
   Simon Fraser
   Sylvain Galineau
   Daniel Glazman
   John Jansen
   Brad Kemper
   Peter Linss
   Alex Mogilevsky
   David Singer
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/22-CSS-irc
ScribeNick: smfr

Administrative
--------------

   no agenda additions

CSS2.1 Implementation Reports
-----------------------------

   wanted to hear status from mozilla and opera; no-one is on the call
   <glazou> dbaron: can you answer through IRC?
   <dbaron> what's the question?
   sylvaing: want to hear from apple
   <dbaron> Over the weekend, before the template was up, I ran the tests
            for chapters 1-4
   <dbaron> but it turns out that isn't actually very useful for building
            the template, so I'll probably toss that work out
   smfr: we have not have resources to go through the test suite, unless
         it gets automated
   <dbaron> I'm hoping to run the noninteractive parts of the testsuite
            through the reftest harness to reduce the tests to unique images
   <dbaron> which Opera says should be about ~3000 instead of ~9000 or
            something like that
   <dbaron> I'm not exactly sure where that leaves me, though; it depends
            how much time I'll have.
   smfr: we could try to crowdsource running the tests
   sylvaing: so someone could fail every test
   sylvaing: this is a vendor's report; should be run by the vendor
   plinss: maybe we can trust the results if multiple people give the
           same answers
   <dbaron> Also, I'm probably going to add an additional state to my
            implementation report
   <dbaron> Since I'm unlikely to be able to figure out whether all the
            tests that fail are valid or not
   sylvaing: impl. report should explain if the report is not produced
             directly by the vendor
   <dbaron> so I'll have three failing states instead of two: bug, fail,
            and invalid
   smfr: maybe we can use the crowdsourced results to focus our testing
   sylvaing: you still have to go through the results, so maybe you
             don't save that much
   smfr: does the harness let you query results for a given user agent?
   plinss: tabatkins is working on migrating the HP harness from the w3c server
   sylvaing: apple probably won't make 10/15, nor google or mozilla
   sylvaing: google WILL make it (according to tabatkins )
   <sylvaing> correction: microsoft+google indicated they'd make the date;
              apple,mozilla and opera not, it seems
   sylvaing: we won't have two implementations for each testcase
   <dbaron> BTW, shouldn't you be talking about 10/18 rather than 10/15
            given when the test suite and implementation report template
            were available?
   <smfr> yes, should be 10/18
   <sylvaing> yes, 10/18; corrected
   <bradk> What about others, such as Prince?
   plinss: don't have definite answer for mozilla and opera, iffy for apple

CSS 2.1 CR Exit Criteria
------------------------

   relaxed exit criteria to allow use of current betas
   smfr: do webkit nightly builds count? not public betas, but are downloadable
   bradk: opera have the same problem
   plinss: nightlies too unstable
   * smfr explains how safari and webkit relate
   plinss: nightlies are ok so long as they have been available for a min.
           of a month
   <dsinger> that's more it.  we want that the *feature* is stable, not
             that the *build* is old
   sylvaing: we have two vendors submitting reports by 10/18. can the
             other vendors estimate when they can submit?
   smfr: can't for apple
   <bradk> Is it true that the feature is stable if it is not prefixed?
   <dsinger> so, ask that the test passes in a build at least two weeks
             old (and that it hasn't broken in the meantime)
   plinss: do we want to relax exit criteria for 2.1?
   glazou: if we relax the build criteria, will it help?
   sylvaing: it's not the build, it is the cost of running the tests
   glazou: we should be pragmatic. we should do whatever we need to make
           CSS 2.1 a Rec.
   sylvaing: there are other issues
   discussion at TPAC will ensue
   sylvaing: maybe we can relax the rule for 2 passes on all tests
   plinss: do we have to have complete report from each vendor, or just
           enough to show 2 impls passing each test
   smfr: what happens if tests fail in all impls?
   arronei: there are 126 failures in all browsers
   <dbaron> Does that 126 number include corrections from when that list
            was discussed on public-css-testsuite?
   <dbaron> (i.e., errors in some of the tests were pointed out)
   sylvaing: how many tests fail in one or both of IE and chrome
             (the 2 impl. reports) we have
   glazou: does arronei have reports for all browsers
   sylvaing: yes, but MS will not submit reports for other vendors
   but MS willing to help share to cross-check the results
   smfr talked about lack of automation
   dsinger: what's the real issue
   glazou: it's a problem for tests that don't pass in 2 browsers
   sylvaing: let's say MS and chrome submit, and other vendors focus
             on failing tests
   sylvaing: can we still go with that?
   glazou: we can take it to the letter. "we need 2 implementations
           for each feature"
   dsinger: we've met the spirit of the law, if not necessarily the letter
   <sylvaing> (smfr, I think it's the reverse actually..)
   <dsinger> or rather, we met the letter of the law, but more
             importantly, we also can say we met the spirit
   glazou: instead of submitting 4 columns of pass/fail, we list 2
           browsers for each
   <JohnJansen> it looks like there are about 1800 tests that neither
                IE nor Chrome pass
   <JohnJansen> or rather about 7600 tests that we both pass
   szilles: it's up to the browser vendors to control how they look
   JohnJansen: 1800 tests that either IE or chrome fail
   arronei: it's only 126
   <smfr> we have 1800 lacking two passes (from IE or chrome)
   <smfr> so other vendors should focus on those tests
   sylvaing: if we had mozilla, what would the number be?
   dsinger: how many fail because the test is wrong?
   smfr / arronei: those tests are gradually being addressed
   dsinger: what about two tests that can't both be passed?
   arronei: haven't come across any of those
   <dbaron> I've come across two that can't both be passed
   smfr: is the feature == test assumption for exit realistic?
   <dbaron> but it was due to an error in one of them
   <dbaron> feature == test was never the assumption
   smfr: a "feature" is covered by a set of tests, maybe we
         shouldn't require passes of all tests for a given feature
   plinss: we've done that before
   sylvaing: question for opera. do they need to submit data for 3 platforms
   plinss: it's not necessary, may be helpful if only one platform passes
   plinss: cannot count different platforms as different implementations
   sylvaing: re: feature vs. test: since we have 20% of tests failing,
             it doesn't matter much
   plinss: to conclude
   plinss: partial reports from some vendors are ok
   <sylvaing> any objections ?
   no objections
   plinss: can we get a list of the 1800 tests that we need reports for
   JohnJansen: MS can submit its report on 9/29
   we don't know when chrome will submit
   plinss: can MS publish an informal list of where other vendors need to focus?
   JohnJansen: have to check
   JohnJansen: if we have mozilla, that 1800 number goes way down
   glazou: 7600 tests pass in both browsers, in both XHTML1 and HTML4,
           or just one?
   arronei: IE9 beta and Chrome
   plinss: can we get resolution on exit criteria? IE9 beta is not good enough
   exit criteria currently state "shipping builds"
   JohnJansen: by the time of publishing, it will have been out for 30 days
   <dbaron> did we previously resolve to change the 2.1 exit criteria to
            match the ones we've recently been using for css3 modules?
   RESOLUTION: will change exit criteria to 2 publicly available builds
               (including nightlies and betas), as long as they have been
               available to the general public for 1 month
   plinss: should not include experimental builds, or builds made to just
           pass a test
   plinss: intent should be that the feature should be present in nightlies
           for a month
   <dbaron> builds along a development line intended for a release?
   <dsinger> basically, we have to defend the results with a straight face.
             that's the bottom line.
   plinss: this is adopting for 2.1 what we have been doing for CSS 3
   RESOLVED: adopt current exit criteria for CSS 2.1
   sylvaing: have an action to talk to tabatkins to see how chrome is doing,
             and share testcases that don't pass in both
   sylvaing: any actions on other vendors?
   action on other vendors: get implementation reports done; partial
          reports are acceptable
   plinss: no intention to slip the dates
   glazou: arronei, did you run the tests manually at least once?
   glazou: how many per day?
   arronei: 600 tests in an hour, manually
   smfr: i would like some kind of basic harness to come with the test suite

Meeting closed.
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 15:03:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:32 GMT