- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:05:54 -0700
- 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 UTC