W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > November 2011

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

From: Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin <aharon@google.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:01:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+FsOYZphHU+E+fsMUReCgjwGsOh+O-V10njntqjNE9wf677OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html-testsuite@w3.org" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>, html5bidi@googlegroups.com
We also intend to submit CSS tests to the CSS WG, but in most cases CSS
tests alone are insufficient. For example:
- whether <br> is a bidi paragraph separator or not is part of the HTML
spec, not the CSS spec.
- while <bdi> is implemented mostly by unicode-bidi:isolate, HTML tests are
necessary to check that the bdi element itself has been defined, that the
default stylesheet gives it unicode-bidi:isolate (even when its dir
attribute is set), and that it has dir=auto by default. And checking that
it indeed isolates properly (in basically the same way as the tests for
unicode-bidi:isolate will work) can't hurt.

Aharon

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Notes
> * One new bug on canvas test (
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14421) - 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
> http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/html5bidi/br/br-bidi.html
>
> IRC Log
> [08:08] == krisk [qw3birc@128.30.52.28] has joined #htmlt
> [08:08] <krisk> OK back...network 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2011Nov/0014.html
> [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> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14421
> [08:30] <krisk> I only see this bug from ben wells
> [08:32] <krisk>
> http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/approved/canvas/2d.path.stroke.prune.arc.htmlis 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>
> http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/html5bidi/br/br-bidi.html
> [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. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-br-element
> [08:56] <krisk> wrong url.. e.g.
> http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/submission/Mozilla/script-for-onload.html
> [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 [mailto:krisk@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 7:03 PM
> To: 'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'
> Subject: HTML Testing Task Force Conf Call Agenda 11/15/2011
>
> Agenda
>
> #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.
>
> -Thanks!
>
> IRC #HTMLT
> Time 16:00-17:00 UTC (11:00am-12:00pm Boston local) Zakim Bridge
> +1.617.761.6200, conference 48658
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2011 11:13:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:43 UTC