RE: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 3/8/2011

Meeting notes - 

* No new bugs on approved tests
* Some fixes made and will get moved to the approved folder (canvas security tests broken due to server name changes)
* Agreement on the March 22nd date for the A/V tests
* Philippe to get clarification from Rigo about using the HTML5Lib Parser Tests

IRC - 
[08:02] == krisk [qw3birc@] has joined #htmlt
[08:04] == Zakim [rrs-bridgg@] has joined #htmlt
[08:04] == No such nick/channel: rssagent
[08:04] <krisk> zakim, this is htmlt
[08:04] <Zakim> krisk, I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be htmlt".
[08:04] <krisk> zakim, this will be htmlt
[08:04] <Zakim> ok, krisk; I see HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
[08:05] <krisk> trackbot-ng, start telcon
[08:05]  * jgraham is on irc
[08:06] <krisk> Let's start the meeting...
[08:06] <krisk> I suspect we can do this in irc - unless someone wants to dial in
[08:08] <krisk> Agenda
[08:08] == plh [plh@] has joined #htmlt
[08:08] <krisk> First Item - Bugs on approved tests
[08:08] <krisk> I don't see any new bugs on the approved tests
[08:08]  * plh zakim, who is on the phone?
[08:08]  * Zakim HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has not yet started, plh
[08:08]  * Zakim sees on irc: plh, Zakim, krisk, Ms2ger, jgraham, gsnedders
[08:08] <krisk> Looks like plh is dialing in...
[08:09] <Zakim> HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has now started
[08:09] == MikeSmith [MikeSmith@] has joined #htmlt
[08:09] <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
[08:09]  * plh zakim, call plh-work
[08:09]  * Zakim ok, plh; the call is being made
[08:09] <Zakim> +Plh
[08:10] <krisk> zakim, Microsoft is krisk
[08:10] <Zakim> +krisk; got it
[08:10] <MikeSmith> Zakim, code?
[08:10] <Zakim> the conference code is 48658 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), MikeSmith
[08:10] <Zakim> +??P7
[08:10] <MikeSmith> Zakim, ??P7 is me
[08:10] <Zakim> +MikeSmith; got it
[08:10] == RRSAgent [rrs-loggee@] has joined #htmlt
[08:10] <RRSAgent> logging to
[08:11]  * plh "/invite RRSAgent #htmlt"
[08:12]  * plh
[08:12] <krisk> Ok lets get going again...
[08:12] <krisk> We don't have any new bugs on the approved tests
[08:13] <krisk> And note that philip taylor updated the security tests
[08:15] <krisk> I'll move them to the approved folder
[08:15] <krisk> you can see his changes at
[08:16] <krisk> I sent out the email to the list with the 'patch' for the A/V (event parameter fix) tests
[08:16] <krisk> Seems that we have consensus
[08:17] <plh> Kris: I'll push the 3 recent set of changes from Philipp
[08:17] <krisk> Actually if you look at the diff
[08:18] <krisk> you'll see that he updated the approved tests
[08:18] <Ms2ger> He did?
[08:18] <plh>
[08:18] <plh> nope, he did not
[08:19] <krisk> Ah - actually nope...
[08:19] <krisk> he just updated teh path to in the submitted tests
[08:20] <plh> Kris will push 0be07106838c to approved
[08:21] <krisk> Now he has also updated the text in a number of tests and added a few new cases
[08:21] <plh> 5bfdbef872e3 and fda9e1dafde7 need to be reviewed then
[08:22] <krisk> for example
[08:22] <krisk> Getting back to agenda item #2
[08:23] <Ms2ger> I trust 5bfdbef872e3 to be good
[08:24] <krisk> seems like we should ping Phillip and ask him if he is done and then move to getting feedback and approval
[08:25] <krisk> So I sent out the email to the list with a March 22nd day for approving the google A/V tests
[08:25] <krisk> ...are people OK with this date?
[08:25] <krisk> It seems Opera is OK looking at the feedback..
[08:26] <plh> did you apply all the changes you wanted to do for the google a/v tests?
[08:26] <MikeSmith> Zakim, mute me
[08:26] <Zakim> MikeSmith should now be muted
[08:26] <krisk> I only patched one case and sent out a pointer
[08:26] <plh> looks like we got agreement on that one, didn't we?
[08:27] <krisk> I didn't want to go patch a bunch and people complain...
[08:27] <jgraham> hg revert is a wonderful thing :)
[08:27] <krisk> Sounds like we have consensus
[08:27] <Ms2ger> Go for it
[08:27] <plh> +1
[08:28] <jgraham> +!
[08:28]  * Zakim wonders where ! is
[08:28] <jgraham> er +1
[08:28]  * jgraham fails
[08:28] <krisk> Ok now the next item is the legal question about the HTML5Lib tests
[08:28] <MikeSmith> +*
[08:28]  * Zakim wonders where * is
[08:28]  * plh suggests a qwerty keyboard for James :)
[08:29] <plh> hum, good question
[08:29] <krisk> This seems like a question that needs to be answered by the w3c - Rigo?
[08:30] <plh> it seems to me we should support the case
[08:30] <krisk> Phl can you have him respond to the list?
[08:30] <plh> who owns the html5lib tests?
[08:31] <plh> is it Henri?
[08:31] <Ms2ger> Their authors, I guess
[08:31] <krisk> I'm not a lawyer - so I can't say if this is OK or Not OK
[08:31] <jgraham> In waht sense?
[08:31] <jgraham> In what sense "owns" I mean
[08:31] <plh> who produced them?
[08:31] <Ms2ger> Mozilla, Google, Opera, and various contributors
[08:31] <jgraham> A bunch of people
[08:32] <plh> ok, I'll need to ask Rigo for this
[08:32] <jgraham> has an incomplete list
[08:33] <jgraham> (e.g. gsnedders is missing)
[08:33] <gsnedders> My understanding is proided the license is a superset of the MIT license is fine
[08:33] <gsnedders> *it is fine
[08:33] <jgraham> (that is a bug in the file)
[08:34] <jgraham> gsnedders: The problem is presumably not "would we violate the MIT license"
[08:34] <krisk> It seems like this *could* happen...
[08:34] <jgraham> But "is W3C happy to have a special license for some parts of the testsuite"
[08:34] <MikeSmith> I think we you also want to have an record a explicit statement from each contributor saying that he/she agrees to the terms of the license
[08:35] <krisk> it just seems that we have to just get the OK from Rigo and see what needs to be done
[08:35] <jgraham> MikeSmith: Who wants to have that?
[08:35] <MikeSmith> others who want to redistribute the code
[08:36] <jgraham> MikeSmith: Isn't that the "relicense everything to W3C/BSD license" scenario?
[08:36] <MikeSmith> dunno
[08:36] <MikeSmith> but e.g., I have been asked in the past by Eclipse maintainers to provide that for other projects I worked on
[08:36] <plh> imho, I think it would be fine to have those tests in. the whole goal of the w3c test suite licenses was to prevent individuals starting to make conformance claims with respect to a specification. if we have bits under mit license, there is no risk imo.
[08:36] <jgraham> I'm not sure I am following what everyone is thinking
[08:36] <plh> but again, I'll need to check with Rigo
[08:36] <jgraham> plh: OK, if you can check that would be great
[08:36] <krisk> PLH; It would also be good to know if we can change a test once it has been submitted
[08:37] <plh> the mit license allows us to do that
[08:37] <MikeSmith> yeah
[08:37] <krisk> good
[08:37] <jgraham> I would hope that we would make changes upstream
[08:37] <jgraham> and resync
[08:37] <plh> yep
[08:37] <MikeSmith> that would be ideal
[08:37] <krisk> It would also seem to be good to know if this 'format' could be used for new tests as well
[08:38] <plh> those are parser tests, a different kind of beast
[08:38] <plh> so, I'm not sure if we need to propagate anything regarding the format
[08:38] <jgraham> No, the format is highly specific
[08:40] <krisk> sounds like then we have a plan to move forward
[08:41] <krisk> Has anyone noticed any Hg issues?
[08:42] <jgraham> Not really. I get some error message when I push that might be related to the move, but it seems harmless
[08:43]  * jgraham can't find the example right now
[08:43] <krisk> I see what looks like a locked? tmp file on the server?
[08:43] <plh> I'm asking our system folks about that
[08:43] <krisk> Thanks
[08:44] <krisk> error == rm: cannot remove '/u/': Permission denied
[08:44] <krisk> Shall we adjourn?
[08:44] <jgraham> Yes that's what I see
[08:44] <Ms2ger> I noticed that w3c-test doesn't seem to update anymore
[08:44] <jgraham> presumably a post-commit hook that didn't get updated for the new server
[08:46] <krisk> Ms2ger do you have a specific example?
[08:46] <krisk> If so please send it to the list
[08:47] <Ms2ger>, for example
[08:47] <MikeSmith> Zakim, unmute me
[08:47] <Zakim> MikeSmith should no longer be muted
[08:48] <Zakim> -Plh
[08:48] <krisk> thanks
[08:48] <Zakim> -MikeSmith
[08:48] <krisk> lets adjourn
[08:48] <Zakim> -krisk
[08:48] <Zakim> HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM has ended

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Kris Krueger
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 9:45 PM
To: ''
Subject: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 3/8/2011


#1 Check for any bugs on approved tests
#2 Call for consensus to move to the Google A/V to approved with fixes from feedback on March 22nd
#3 HTML5Lib Legal Question (parser tests)

If you have other items you would like, please email me directly.


Time 16:00-17:00 UTC (11:00am-12:00pm Boston local) Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 48658

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 18:37:21 UTC