RE: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 11/15/2011

* One new bug on canvas test ( - no initial options on bugs correctness
* Need clarity on impact of making ES5 changes to testharness.js to support webidl testing
* bidi rendering test submission

[08:08] == krisk [qw3birc@] has joined #htmlt
[08:08] <krisk> OK issues
[08:08] <Ms2ger> Oh, right
[08:09] <krisk> If someone wants to dial speak up...
[08:09] <krisk> else we'll just do this on IRC
[08:10] <Ms2ger> gsnedders, jgraham
[08:11] <krisk> Agenda:
[08:12]  * jgraham is here
[08:12] <krisk> We can also talk about other items as well..
[08:13] <krisk> jgraham asked on the list about some ES5 changes to the test harness
[08:14] <jgraham> Yeah, we will need these to test webidl in detail
[08:14] <krisk> So the changes are to support testing webidl?
[08:14] <Ms2ger> Additions, no?
[08:15] <jgraham> Although I don't plan to commit the change that I had in mind (for assert_readonly) because browsers don't support the details yet
[08:15] <jgraham> The changes will be to support testing the detailed requirements that WebIDL places on interfaces
[08:15] <jgraham> That may or may not be "testing WebIDL" depending on what you mean
[08:16] <krisk> If we need new asserts to test parts of webidl (readonly?) properly that seems to be a good direction
[08:17] <krisk> ..for testharness.js
[08:18] <jgraham> Yeah, there is a plan to add more sophisticated understanding of WebIDL to testharness.js
[08:18] <krisk> Is it possible to make this additive - so that you keep compat?
[08:18] <jgraham> Yes
[08:19] <krisk> ..maybe add new asserts specifically for the webidl stuff that expects ES5
[08:19] <krisk> Then assert_true would still work like it does today
[08:19] <jgraham> Although I don't want to guarantee that assert_* functions won't change (and so cause browsers that previously "passed" to "fail
[08:19] <jgraham> )
[08:20] <jgraham> Because I don't think it makes sense in the long term to have assert_readonly and assert_reaonly_extras, for example
[08:20] <jgraham> *assert_readonly_extras
[08:21] <krisk> you could make the old asserts ugly - e.g. assert_readonly_non_ES5
[08:22] <jgraham> I don't see how that would help; you would need people to update tests to use the old asserts if they wanted them
[08:23] <jgraham> Anyway, I don't have any qualms about tightening up tests over time. The goal is to improve interoperability, not score browsers
[08:24] <krisk> Do you know what browser the vodefone Kay.Fritz was talkng about?
[08:25] <krisk> That seems like the only person objecting
[08:25] <krisk> Other than Aryeh which was talking about Opera - which is really Opera's call
[08:25] <gsnedders> I expect out of date versions of webKit/Presto still shipping in Mobile was his quelms.
[08:26] <gsnedders> As for Opera (Desktop), with the current beta supporting ES5 in full we have little issue in requiring it - the latest stable release isn't really that interesting any more.
[08:29] <krisk> OK then if it's about testing out of date browsers that seems to be optimizing in the wrong direction
[08:29] <krisk> I'll ask Fritz to be more specific
[08:29] <krisk> ..about what browser he is testing
[08:29] <gsnedders> I don't know any current in-development products that don't support ES5.
[08:30] <krisk> Note that I didn't object
[08:30] <krisk> let's move on...
[08:30] <krisk> Agenda Item #1 Bugs on approved tests
[08:30] <krisk>
[08:30] <krisk> I only see this bug from ben wells
[08:32] <krisk> is the test
[08:33] <krisk> taking a quick peek it looks like a valid bug
[08:33] <Ms2ger> Taking a quick look often isn't enough for canvas tests :)
[08:34] <krisk> Feel free to comment in the bug
[08:35] <krisk> ..or take a longer peek at the bug..
[08:35] <Ms2ger> I'm trying to make Philip reply
[08:37] <Ms2ger> Not a lot of luck, I'm afraid
[08:40] <krisk> Agenda Item #2 New Test Submissions
[08:41] <krisk> Someone asked (last night) on the list about deviceorientation API testing
[08:42] <krisk> Which is not in the HTML5 spec
[08:43] <krisk> maybe they will also create some other tests as well?
[08:43] <krisk> Also looking at Hg I see the bidi folks have submitted a test
[08:43] <krisk>
[08:44] <Ms2ger> I hear that group will also submit some of Mozilla's tests
[08:45] <krisk> It seems like that since they are rendering tests...
[08:46] <krisk> They might really end up being CSS tests
[08:47] <Ms2ger> Not sure how else you would test bidi
[08:47] <Ms2ger> I believe there are a number of requirements about bidi in HTML
[08:48] <krisk> As long as they are normative statements that is just fine
[08:48] <jgraham> Ms2ger: The bidi people will submit Mozilla tests?
[08:48] <jgraham> Or the mobile web people?
[08:48] <Ms2ger> The bidi people
[08:49] <krisk> It's good to see them submit tests
[08:51] <jgraham> Yes bidi tests++
[08:53] <krisk> They might also want to participate in the CSS WG
[08:55] <krisk> Last Agenda item test review period
[08:56] <krisk> Feel free to send feedback on tests to the list
[08:56] <krisk> Looks like some tests have been updated with feedback as well e.g.
[08:56] <krisk> wrong url.. e.g.
[08:57] <Ms2ger> Yeah, I fixed your feedback about the Mozilla tests I submitted
[08:57] <krisk> Also if u have additional feedback on a test that get sent to the list you should also provide feedback
[08:59] <krisk> jgraham have you looked at the microsoft history and strutured clone tests?
[08:59] <jgraham> No, not in any detail
[08:59] <jgraham> Sorry
[08:59] <jgraham> I will try to do it
[09:01] <krisk> Shall we adjourn?
[09:02] <Ms2ger> krisk, btw, I've seen you sent comments on my tests, but haven't gotten to it yet
[09:04] <krisk> OK
[09:04] <krisk> meeting adjourned

-----Original Message-----
From: Kris Krueger [] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 7:03 PM
To: ''
Subject: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 11/15/2011


#1 Check for any bugs on approved tests
#2 New Test Submissions
#3 Test Review(s) Period from Oct 15th -> December 15th

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 Thursday, 17 November 2011 16:04:39 UTC