- From: David Burns <david.burns@theautomatedtester.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:39:04 +0100
- To: Mathias Bynens <mths@google.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>, public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPmg_ct_4tQrbD3KL-tWwgbyDomugT+FeBtiUjhzWWJLcNorBw@mail.gmail.com>
As requested in a previous email, could we get the meeting notes from this shared ASAP so that we can be seen to be inclusive. David On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM David Burns < david.burns@theautomatedtester.co.uk> wrote: > I will go ahead and set up a meeting so that it can be inclusive of anyone > who is interested in the project. > > The work should definitely be done within the WG since it's already in the > WG github repo and issues except, unintentionally?, meetings did not > include the group. > I am going to assume no malice but having a meeting with "interested > parties" but ignoring the people who have historically been driving this > from the meeting does come across poorly. We need to make sure that this > does not happen again in the future. > > Could we also get the minutes shared with this group as well, I haven't > seen those shared yet. > > David > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Mathias Bynens <mths@google.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for that great summary, Philip.There's definitely no intention of >> keeping this meeting "hidden" or secret. Anyone who's interested in talking >> about BiDi is welcome to join. >> >> As for logistics, I suggest we simply invite >> public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org to any future meetings, and start >> taking public minutes. WDYT? >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:30 PM Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> A bunch of people indeed meet yesterday to discuss the explainer >>> <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/blob/master/webdriver-bidi/webdriver.md> and >>> some of the BiDi issues <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/labels/BiDi> >>> filed by James. This grew organically out of a first Google/Microsoft >>> meeting to gauge the level of interest about a month ago. Since it's such >>> early days for this workstream, I don't think any of us have considered >>> whether to use existing WG meetings, public minutes, etc., we just met to >>> see what would come of it. >>> >>> Trying to summarize some of the discussion: >>> >>> - Specify how to enable an event stream >>> <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues/1501> - The basic problem >>> is the full stream of events might be too much, so you'd need some way to >>> enable a subset of all possible events. The next problem is that there are >>> some events from targets you don't know if/when they'll appear, like >>> iframes and service workers, that you want to subscribe to if they appear. >>> We thought that some per-session mechanism to enable events per domain and >>> possibly per target type might work. >>> - Update goals in the explainer document >>> <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues/1499> - I think we ended up >>> concurring with what James wrote on devtools protocols. While being able to >>> use BiDi together with devtools protocols would probably help a transition, >>> it's no requirement that BiDi is layered on top of a devtools protocol, and >>> for example how to get from identifiers in one protocol to the other, when >>> both are supported, would perhaps be as extra properties or "convert this >>> to that" commands in one of the protocols. >>> - Specify a low-level transport format >>> <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues/1498> - It sounds like >>> JSON-RPC isn't exactly what we need, but there isn't anything else that is. >>> Basing something on JSON-RPC but writing a stringent test suite for it >>> sounded reasonable. It's not clear if transmitting binary as base64 will be >>> enough of a problem to avoid JSON-RPC, I got the sense that most >>> implementers don't think so. >>> >>> @Mathias Bynens <mths@google.com> or others on this list might be able >>> to add more detail, and in any case it'd be a good idea to get this into >>> the issues rather than notes. >>> >>> I've not seen any suggestion to spin up a CG for this, but enough people >>> found it useful enough to repeat it on a monthly basis. I think it would >>> make sense to have the BiDi meeting be open to any WG members and to take >>> minutes in public. What are the logistics for doing that? >>> >>> Philip >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:56 AM David Burns < >>> david.burns@theautomatedtester.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I am just sharing this as there appears to be hidden meetings about the >>>> WebDriver BiDi work that does not include anyone from the Selenium group, >>>> the editors of the webdriver specification and probably others (who knows >>>> as it was a closed meeting). >>>> >>>> Has there been some agreement to move this out to a community group >>>> instead of using the working group? >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>
Received on Friday, 24 April 2020 17:39:29 UTC