W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2016

Minutes, 1 December 2016 SVG WG telcon

From: Nikos Andronikos <Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:35:30 +0000
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <68BDB176-3750-45AE-A6C6-41822AA937E9@cisra.canon.com.au>


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                    SVG Working Group Teleconference

01 Dec 2016


      [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Nov/0025.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/01-svg-irc


          nikos, Tav, gsnedders, AmeliaBR, shepazu, stakagi




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Testing
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribe: nikos



   nikos: Sent an email to www-svg
   ... just trying to work out what the common wisdom was around
   small pixel differences

   ... dbaron gave an interesting reply
   ... before in the references I was using the absolute minimum
   set of SVG features so I could be sure something would work
   ... dbaron suggested only differering SVG and ref by what is
   being tested
   ... then you should use mostly the same code paths and get a
   very similar result

      [8] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Nov/0020.html

   AmeliaBR: think that's a good path when it can be used
   ... the tests have to be approached as a complete test suite
   ... can't look at one test and assume reference is what it is
   supposed to be
   ... because that reference relies on other features

   shepazu: you have to treat the test suite as a whole. you can't
   run a test in isolation

   AmeliaBR: Yeah if that were not the case you would need PNG

   shepazu: it introduces the idea of prerequisites into the test

   AmeliaBR: exactly, no point going to the next test if you
   haven't passed the previous
   ... not sure that will solve all the problems
   ... certainly if your basic test is whether markers are
   ... you're going to have to use markers in one version and
   something else in another

   nikos: Yeah well in that case you can test markers without any
   ... I need to update the tests that were failing to verify all
   this works, but I suspect it will
   ... and I'll update the documentation

   gsnedders: I looked at your references. Was wondering if the
   differences were caused by the transforms and scaling

   AmeliaBR: existing tests were written with the idea in mind
   that they would be doing manual comparisons against the image
   ... if we were to break away from that and start from scratch
   ... be very precise and minimise any rounding errors, we can
   probably alleviate that

   nikos: think that's the path we'll have to take, where we don't
   copy 1 for 1, we have to restructure

   <gsnedders> public-test-infra

   gsnedders: The other thing I wanted to mention. Is the
   public-test-infra is a good place to email about testing issues
   ... that's about all testing stuff, not just limited to

   AmeliaBR: what about going forward? Should we still focus on
   trying to convert the old tests as we can?

   nikos: So the old tests are a good source of places to find
   tests to write
   ... the other option



      [9] https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues?q=is:open+is:issue+label:"Needs+tests"

   scribe: I added a label to Github for issues that require a
   ... So there's old tests that need converting, but that won't
   cover all the corner cases. But it's also good to focus on
   things being worked on and discussed now so we can get tests in
   and file browser bugs.

   AmeliaBR: lots of issues resolved in SVG 2 that aren't covered
   by the svg 1.1 test suite
   ... so it's not an end game

   nikos: Original plan was for chapter owners to write tests for
   their chapters

   gsnedders: Given I haven't looked at the spec much, is there a
   list of changes?



     [10] https://nikosandronikos.github.io/svg2-info/svg2-feature-support

   AmeliaBR: we have lists of features, but not sure we were so
   good about documenting where we fixed cross browser

   nikos: one of the reasons I want to get feedback is to
   prioritise test creation
   ... so we are making tests for things people actually want to


     [11] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1321066



     [12] https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/11/30/fixing-an-svg-animation-vulnerability/

   <AmeliaBR> ^ Mozilla got a scare with a 0-day security bug
   hidden in SVG/SMIL API code.

   AmeliaBR: it would be nice to get clarity on what the
   priorities are - from the authoring side, a big priority can be
   focusing on existing features where there are incompatibilities
   ... unfortunately we don't have a single list

   gsnedders: how hard would it be to run the browsers own tests
   against each other?
   ... if the goal is to find places where they don't interoperate
   ... probably not too hard?

   AmeliaBR: if we can import all their svg related tests
   ... then to make sure what they're testing already is correct,
   would be an important first step
   ... suspect a lot of issues are in what's not being tested

   nikos: sounds like an excellent idea

   gsnedders: suspect you may hit a few that match exactly in the
   browser they are written for but not in others
   ... it's been a while since I've tried doing stuff like thi

   nikos: difference between WebKit is mostly the naming
   conventions. So that could likely be script converted mostly

   gsnedders: Blink is the same as WebKit. Mozilla have manifest
   ... would be easy to convert
   ... wouldn't be surprised if some were using JS layout stuff
   ... looking at the DOM to see where things are rendered

   nikos: yeah a lot of the older WebKit tests might be like that

   gsnedders: Mozilla may be the best place to start because many
   are cc0 licensed nowadays

   <AmeliaBR> MDN on how to create ref tests:


     [13] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Creating_reftest-based_unit_tests

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and may also be the subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the information from your system.
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2016 22:36:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:46 UTC