W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

[CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-08-31

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:05:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4E5E8612.4010100@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Summary:

   - RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of css3-values
   - RESOLVED: Publish WD of Selectors 4 with the Rec of Selectors 3.
   - RESOLVED: The editor of a spec is responsible for posting to the blog,
               www-style, etc. when something is published.
   Also discussed
     - spec markup for testing
     - CSS2.1 issue tracking
     - blog transition to WordPress
     - plinss's new test tracking system which is up for pre-alpha testing
     - some additional administrivia

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

Present:
   Tab Atkins
   David Baron
   Kimberly Blessing
   Bert Boss
   Arron Eicholz
   Elika Etemad
   Daniel Glazman
   Arno Gourdol
   Brad Kemper
   Peter Linss
   Divya Manian
   Edward O'Connor
   Florian Rivoal
   David Singer
   Alan Stearns
   Steve Zilles

<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/31-css-irc
Scribe: TabAtkins
* glazou is back but with such a monster backlog he has not processed all
          www-style/w3-css-wg emails...

Publishing
----------

   plinss: Had a request to publish an update to css3 values.
   glazou: fantasai sent an email about extra stuff
   plinss: Yes, I have that.
   TabAtkins: I support publishing the new Values WD
   plinss: Any opposition?
   Bert, glazou: in favor
   RESOLVED: Publish a new WD of css3-values

   plinss: We discussed last week some specs we may want to update for epub,
           and we started talking about fonts.  do we have the people we need?
   fantasai: Unless John Daggett is on, no.
   fantasai: I think Fonts is less critical, because there's no syntactic
             changes.
   fantasai: And they're tracking the latest in terms of semantics.
   fantasai: As soon as John publishes the next draft, it'll be the one that
             defines the matching algo.
   fantasai: I think that's all we need to discuss for epub.  Writing Modes
             and Text will be published this week.

   plinss: Bert's not sure we have a formal resolution to publish Selectors 4.
   fantasai: Bert said Selectors 3 will publish near the end of September.
             I think we should just publish now.
   fantasai: I think Selectors is a good spec to break the level 3/4 barrier
             with.
   plinss: There was some concern about publishing before the Rec came out,
           but I'm not too concerned about that.
   glazou: A while back we got an email from Ian Jacobs about that, and he
           was concerned about releasing Selectors 4 before 3 was Rec.
   szilles: It's easier to describe what's going on if Selectors 3 is a Rec
            before we release Selectors 4.
   fantasai: One, HTML5 needs something to refer to, and we don't want them
             referring to our EDs, so we need to give them a /TR
   szilles: HTML5 is at least 2 years away from Rec, so it's not a big deal.
   TabAtkins: More like 10 years, to be honest.
   fantasai: They said September 7th is the earliest they can publish.
   fantasai: We're also trying to work on things in parallel, so we'll get
             to the point where we're working on a level 4 module while the
             level 3 module is in CR.  So what's the problem?
   szilles: You're missing the publicity opportunity.
   fantasai: We had one with 2.1
   szilles: And we have another one here.  There's no real urgency.
   fantasai: So the first time we publish a level 4 WD while a level 3 spec
             exists the level 3 spec will be CR, not even almost-REC?
   glazou: It's a bad public signal to release level 4 before level 3 when
           Selectors 3 has been worked on for so so long.
   glazou: It's acceptable to do so when a spec has only been worked on for
           2 years or something, but not 12 years like Selectors.
   szilles: I agree.
   szilles: If there was an urgent problem, I'd agree with fantasai, but HTML5
            isn't an urgent problem here.
   plinss: Do we want to wait to publish, or publish them simultaneously?
   multiple: That's fine.
   RESOLVED: Publish WD of Selectors 4 with the Rec of Selectors 3.

   arronei: Tab, are you sending the request to publish Images?
   TabAtkins: Yes, I've probably missed the slot for this week, but I'll
              publish next week.

   * Ms2ger misses a resolution that it's fine that HTML refers to EDs, if
            the WG isn't willing to publish up-to-date specs
   <glazou> Ms2ger: publishing specs gives a signal to the public about our WG's work
   <glazou> Ms2ger: and the HTML WG is not alone in the W3C
   <Ms2ger> So your signal is that you're doing nothing at all?
   <glazou> Ms2ger: the signal is that we close the "3" chapter for Selectors
            before
   <glazou> Ms2ger: and between you and me, that never prevented the HTML WG
            from including in HTML stuff that's under CSS WG's scope, refer
            to non-existing standards, etc.
   <Ms2ger> glazou, just saying that you can't demand that nobody references
            EDs if you aren't willing to publish the new features people need
            on TR/
   <glazou> Ms2ger: who said we're not willing to release? We just have some
            control on when we release, that's all
   <glazou> Ms2ger: take that to private chat please


Spec conformance markup
-----------------------

   plinss: We're developing tools to map assertions to tests so we have a
           visible record of our coverage.
   <plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2011Aug/0006.html
   plinss: Alan sent out some requests for guidance on how to do this for
           the Regions spec.
   fantasai: I can understand wanting to have more granular anchors, but
             later in the thread you were saying that you just have to
             point out the bits that are normative.  But that's not helpful,
             because most of the spec is normative excepts the notes and
             examples.
   Stearns: I don't think that's quite accurate.  The Regions spec, for
            example, has a large section explaining the mechanics, and that's
            not normative.
   stearns: If you put the markup on just the normative sections, that's a
            first step toward testable assertions.  That gives you a rough
            idea of code coverage.
   stearns: Regions wants to go into finer detail, so we can check to make
            sure that each sentence with a testable assertion has a
            corresponding test.
+howcome
   fantasai: I understand what you're saying wrt marking things up at a
             sentence level, but I don't understand the section level.
             Only a few sections are non-normative, and they can be
             indicated easily.
   fantasai: Also, we already have anchors for the sections.
   plinss: I think he's talking about more just "anything larger than a
           sentence", like a paragraph or something.
   stearns: So you can use this markup to keep track of test coverage for
            whatever level of granularity you want to track.
   arronei: For CSS 2.1, we have thousands of tests, and they're only linked
            to the section level.  The sections are fairly small.
   fantasai: I think 2.1 could have used more granularity in its sections
   arronei: Sure, but our modern specs have even smaller sections, so I'm
            not sure there's a strong problem.
   plinss: I'm not concerned about where the assertions are marked up.
           My concern is about getting sufficient information about testing
           coverage.
   fantasai: Sure. I think per-sentence markup is the best for that, and I
             also don't want to do per-sentence markup.  I think per-paragraph
             would be fine, but per-section is too large and useless.
   plinss: I'm just concerned about how to mark up the testable assertions.
   fantasai: If you except notes and examples, which are already marked up,
             most of the text is normative.  Thus you can more easily take
             the parts that *aren't* normative and mark them up.
   plinss: I think another point is that it's not necessarily the author's
           responsibility.  We already have the notion of the test champion,
           and they could take the spec after it's ready to be published and
           mark up the assertions.
   plinss: I'm not hearing any strong objections.  Does anybody think this
           is a stupid idea?
   arronei: I say we try this on a spec and see how it goes.
   plinss: We're already doing that for Regions.
   fantasai: Is the test champion doing this during CR, or before?
   plinss: When you develop the test suite.
   fantasai: If it's during WD then I have to deal with the markup.
   TabAtkins: Developing the testsuite is up to you. If you wait until CR,
              then you only have to deal with it for CR edits.
   fantasai: Which are minor.
   plinss: I think if you're developing a test suite before stable/CR, you're
           doing something wrong.
   plinss: So I'm not hearing objections.  Alan, go ahead and start working.

CSS 2.1 and issue tracking
--------------------------

   fantasai: Who's tracking issues for 2.1?  Nobody right now, but who's
             responsible going forward for tracking issues for 2.1?
   fantasai: And driving decisions and getting errata published, etc.
             Several things to do.
   plinss: Any volunteers?
   Bert: Since I'm an editor, I guess I have some responsibility there.
   plinss: We do have the bugzilla component set up for it.
   Bert: What is the bugzilla component used for?
   fantasai: Just as a replacement for the wiki.  We still discuss issues
             on the mailing list, but now we can have the issue more clearly
             and with a CLOSED or RESOLVED FIXED status.
   Bert: And that couldn't be done with Tracker?
   fantasai: No, because Tracker sucks at dealing with statuses.
   Bert: But it's good with IRC.
   fantasai: Yes, but most 2.1 issues come in through the mailing list,
             and a lot of them are editorial.
   plinss: So as issues come in from the mailing list, we put them into
           bugzilla and track them there, but we keep the discussions on
           the mailing list.
   fantasai: So we can have Bert assigned as the assignee, and me as the
             QA, so once you mark something as fixed I can check the edit.
   fantasai: Bugzilla also makes it easier to assign issues to different
             people, so you don't have to be the assignee for everything.

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

   fantasai: What's the status of Anton's application?
   Bert: I checked - it's currently in PLH's hands.  I forwarded the
         application about 3 weeks ago, but he's been traveling or on holiday.
   Bert: I'll ask him when he's back.
   plinss: And what about Molly's transition back to IE status?
   Bert: It's happening.  There's a required delay for people to object,
         and it's already started, so it should be done in the next few days.
   Bert: And I think fantasai is already an official Moz member.

   fantasai: The next issue was about the blog.
   Bert: In progress.  The systeam is deciding who is responsible for what
         and when.
   Bert: Our turn should be next week or so.
   fantasai: So for the blogging system, can you make sure all the editors
             have an account?
   Bert: I'll make sure that gets done.
   fantasai: We also need to make sure everyone who has an account knows
             about it, and knows the password, so they can write to the blog.

   fantasai: Last issue is announcements for publications.
   fantasai: I know that you've often done the announcements to www-style,
             but I think we should make it the responsibility of the editor
             to write something.
   Bert: I'm in favor of that.
   glazou: It should be the responsibility of the editor to publish to the
           blog, send to www-style, etc.
   fantasai: Can we resolve on that?
   RESOLVED: The editor of a spec is responsible for posting to the blog,
             www-style, etc. when something is published.

   bradk: Is there a process document somewhere explaining all the steps?
   ACTION fantasai to write up a process document on the wiki for how you
                   actually publish something.

   fantasai: Do we have an errata document set up for 2.1?
   Bert: We should have...
   <Bert> http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-20110607-errata.html
   <Bert> currently empty :-)

   <plinss> http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/
   plinss: The test suite management system is starting to come online for real.
           I'd appreciate feedback.
   plinss: So just try it out and let me know what you think.
   arronei: Changes we make right now will be just testing, right?  It won't
            reflect into real stuff?
   plinss: Yes, I'll regen the database in a few minutes, and will do it again
           just before launch.  Do what you want, it's all scratch space right
           now.
   plinss: If you have a wiki account, you have an account here with the same
           login credentials.
   plinss: There's a lot of UI work left to do, but it's functional.
   plinss: Short meeting today!
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 19:06:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT