- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 09:25:56 +0900
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-html-wg-minutes.html
HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 -- part 2
* Topics
1. W3C Document license
2. HTML.NEXT
3. Testing TF work and plans
4. Testing HTML
_________________________________________________________
W3C Document license
Jeff: discussion of the document license predates my arrival at W3C
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14696] New: This is no longer true: "The end
date is encoded as one day after the last date of the event because
in the iCalendar format, end dates are exclusive, not inclusive"
â so remove ...value="2007-10-20">19...
<11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011N
ov/0299.html> 4** [Bug 14696] This is no longer true: "The end date
is encoded as one day after the last date of the event because in
the iCalendar format,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0299.html
Jeff: so I urge others here to jump in and correct me if needed
... So, several years ago, the HTML WG determined that the W3C
document license did not work for them
... and the group came up with a list of 11 use cases that were not
possible with the current W3C document license
... the chairs of the HTML WG then brought that list to the W3C Team
... and the W3C Team took that list of use cases to the W3C Advisory
Committee
... the W3C AC agreed with the majority of the use cases, but not
with the use cases related to so-called "forking"
... which put the Team sort of between a rock and a hard place
... it turned out that coming up a a suitable license was very
difficult
... this task was handed over to the W3C PSIG
... which did an analysis and proposed a license that they believed
covered 9 of the 11 use cases
... then later in 2010 we decided that we needed to try again
... and in the end we came up with 3 candidate licenses
... the three licenses try to address the use cases and at the same
time address the AC's concerns about "forking"
... I have not doubt that the PSIG left no stone unturned
... the chairs of the HTML WG created a poll
... in which they asked the group to consider the 3 PSIG-proposed
licenses, and also 2 other more-permissive licenses
... the results of the poll were that a majority of the HTML WG
members responded that they could not live with any of the 3
PSIG-proposed licenses
... for the other more-permissive licenses, the majority of the HTML
WG responded to say that they could live with them, though there was
a significant minority that said they could not
... So, where we are at now is that we do not have any plans to
change the W3C document license
... but in another decision, we did great Community Groups with a
more permissive document license
Marcos: we have seen an alternative solution, which is that editors
publish their editor's drafts under "public domain" outside of the
W3C
Jeff: we are on record as supporting a permissive license
... but the Membership told us by an overwhelming majority (80%) is
that when you are on the W3C Rec-track, they feel that needs to not
be forkable
Marcos: We have shared documents, and if the W3C doesn't provide a
more permissive license, we are still going to be [publishing
versions of the same specs outside of the W3C under a more
permissive license]
<KevinMarks> you can't prevent forking by fiat
anne: it seems wrong to me that a secret club behind a Member-only
wall say No to us and tell us what we can and cannot doe
... there is not opportunity for discourse there
<KevinMarks> all you can prevent is the spec representing
implementations that have forked it
Jeff: I hear what you are saying. There is no "opaque wall" if you
are part of a Member org, though I understand that it's different if
you are an Invited Experts
[Jeff asks how many people in the room are IEs and how many are from
Member orgs]
Jeff: The chartering of Activities go through the AC as well
anne: The issue is that many of the members in the AC are not even
members of this group
tantek: as a rep of one of those member companies, I can sympathize
... I've also been an invited expert
.
scribe: there is the entire AC that votes on these issues
... but if you look at the participants in this group
... I can firmly say that as a Member, Mozilla does support a
forking license for the spec
Jeff: part of my philosophy of change is to recognize where there
are huge barriers to change, and to find other areas where the
barriers are not huge, and work there
... so one of the reasons we create the Community Groups was to
address this issue
anne: It would be nice if we were given reasons for why the AC said
No
... the AC is advisory
... and if the Team feels that W3C should have a permissive license,
the AC can be overruled
DaveSinger: I think one rationale was that they want a single
specification to reference
... I don't think we would ever have a case where even if there is a
moderately hostile fork, the W3C does not pursue enforcing the W3C
document license
... so the horse has already left the barn
Tim: one argument is, I want people to say that they are putting
their time and work into the [common place at W3C] where we have
gotten together to do the work
... and we are all committed to working together at W3C to work on
our specs here, not planning to then take them off somewhere else
<KevinMarks> the possibility of forking is what provides the social
pressure to actually agree.
Tim: the case with forking of code is different, whereas with
standards, [the argument for forking] does not hold as well
... I think it's important to not fork but also important to have
the right to fork
... so these are conflicting needs
... I agree with Dave Singer that the license [does not have effect
on what actually happens in practice]
... so I'm not sure we need to continue spending a lot more energy
on this
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
TIm: we should be focusing on doing our actual spec work
Sam: This is perhaps something we can address with HTML.Next
... so maybe we can focus on that constructively
Kai: Companies have one very strong requirement, which is stability
... when you cannot rely on the standards to actually be standards,
that is a huge issue
... W3C through its process guarantees stability
... my recommendation to my own company is that we have to
completely ignore anything that comes out of the WHATWG
... just breaking out of the process because you don't like it is
[not good]
Jeff: I do not work for any of the companies that didn't support
forking
... but I know some of the reasons that we given
... I heard some companies saying that they do not want forking
because we want one Web
... they said they don't want to see the Web get fractured
... for example, if some companies said they wanted a Web that has
DRM features that are not part of a W3C standard
... I also agree with what David said, that maybe we need to do more
educate, to help companies understand permissive licensing
... and I understand that Tim also supports doing such education
tantek: we all want one Web
... I think there are maybe some disagreements about how we get
there
... in a past role, I was at Microsoft, and there was a standard
called DVB-HTML
... and what happened to that standard?
Jeff: It died.
<KevinMarks> lets not even mention WAP
tantek: right. It's doomed to fail. In the long run , the one that
survives in the one that's supported by reputation
<markw> CE-HTML is very much alive in OIPF, HbbTV etc.
tantek: I want to praise the W3C for the Community Groups
... it is our intent to develop the Fullscreen API in a Community
Group with a forking license
... and it is more likely that for [new work we do] we are going to
choose to pursue those in a Community Group
Jeff: one small clarification, I was neither taking a position for
or against forking licenses
.
scribe: I was sharing what I heard
... this is consensus-driven org
... we saw a consensus to provide a more permissive license for
Community Groups
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
scribe: but we did not yet see a consensus to provide a more
permissive license for Working Groups
... but that could change and we could revisit it
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<krisk> scribe: krisk
HTML.NEXT
<plh> --> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next HTML next wiki
http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/next
<pimpbot> Title: HTML/next - W3C Wiki (at www.w3.org)
mikesmith: This meeting is to talk about what features we could add
to the next version of html
samruby: the wiki is a location to store and track items we could
potentially do in HTML.NEXT
... this was last updated in june
tantek: when we re-charted can we move the wiki?
paulcotton: Can you give a rational why to move?
tantek: it'll lower the cost to collaborate with other w3c groups
(less logins..etc..)
mikesmith: all you need is a w3c user/password for w3c wiki's
... though html requires a HTML WG account to update the html wiki
karl: the main wiki was initially created for SW community, "forked"
by QA WG, then more general including documentation. Some people
were not comfortable using the wiki
samruby: Is the content updated on the HTML.NEXT wiki?
<MikeSmith> a shorter list of possible HTML.Next features from my
recent presentation:
http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/TPAC/HTML5/#(15)
http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/TPAC/HTML5/#(15)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Update (at www.w3.org)
davidslinger: these are all good items - though we should also start
to add issues that we have with the current HTML5 spec to this wiki
Mikesmith: we have a bugzilla to track html.next bugs
<tantek> per mikesmith's point about w3c's wiki being more
open/accessible - I see that as an advantage.
slinger: can we add a link to this from the wiki?
samruby: I'm not concerned with where it's at rather that we have it
all in one place
<MikeSmith>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=HTM
L.next
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=HTML.next
<pimpbot> Title: Components for HTML.next (at www.w3.org)
<MikeSmith>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML.next&comp
onent=default&resolution=---
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML.next&component=default&resolution=---
<pimpbot> Title: Bug List (at www.w3.org)
jamesgraham: to add some of these we'll need components
<pimpbot> Title: Components for HTML.next (at www.w3.org)
shelly: I have another feature - make sure that all aria roles are
in the spec
samruby: can you either open a bug or on the wik - indifferent which
type, but it should exist
anne: components are in webapps, but it should use the parser so it
should be html
plh: web intents - wants a new element, html may want to look into
this as well for HTML.NEXT
samruby: they are creating an new element?
<tantek> let's not rathole on intents please
jamesgraham: if they are breaking the parser that seems like a very
bad idea
<plh> --> http://webintents.org/ Web Intents
http://webintents.org/
mikesmith: they don't have spec document, rather it's just a
document
<tantek> mikesmith: I don't think he needed the intent element, he
could have used the meta element
mikesmith: though they are using a new element it could easily be a
meta element
samruby: bugzilla and wiki seems very light...
mikesmith: see the link that mike posted about potential html.next
features
http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/TPAC/HTML5/#(15)
http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/TPAC/HTML5/#(15)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG Update (at www.w3.org)
mikesmith: input mode?
... mobile browsers seem to have this use case
... one item that hixie removed from html5, is the datagrid
... some media items...
... playback statistics
... api media additions
samruby: not only datagrid is on the wiki
kimberly: if we start to talk about forms and mobile
... autocorrect is bad for password
slinger: this is already be taken care of another WG
... I don't think it's good to think about next features, rather we
should be think about how to get the project launched in the best
possible way
adrian: I like to note about a feature I added that's on the wiki
(login)
anne: we should not be thinking about html.next as a big step, html5
was done incrementally
... I suspect html.next will also do the same thing...
... components may change how we think about interaction with
existing and new elements created by libs
... we may want to bring some common lib elements back
... I want to see incremental progress
jamesgraham: we should publish one a year with a small number of
items that are completed rather than a 15 yeare cycle
adrian: I agree with that notion
plh: I also agree with james
samruby: any more items?
paulcotton: let me replay some of the items that came up with at
barcamp dealing with getting specs out faster
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14697] New: Harmonize roles with ARIA
<11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011
Nov/0300.html>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0300.html
paulcotton: I'd like to hear tantek view on doing future html work
in a community group
<tantek> +1
paulcotton: for example webvtt
<tantek> I agree that we should consider community groups for
HTML.next.
paulcotton: the organization is not getting patent protection
because the spec takes so long
... by doing mondular, community groups, are ways to speed up the
process
mikesmith: we have another HTML community group on editing, so we do
have a precedence for doing html.next work in a community group
tantek: I want to follow up with paul's comment
... Mozilla agrees that doing HTML.NEXT work in a community group is
the right place
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 12715] When used to include data blocks (as
opposed to scripts), the data must be embedded inline
<11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011
Nov/0301.html>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0301.html
<MikeSmith> minutes for the first part of this morning are here:
<MikeSmith>
http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-html-wg-minutes-part1.html
http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-html-wg-minutes-part1.html
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 -- part 1 (at
www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
<pimpbot> planet: bhueppe: Journalism in the Open: The 2011/12
Knight-Mozilla Fellows announced
<11http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/11/04/journalism-in-the-ope
n-the-201112-knight-mozilla-fellows-announced/>
http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/11/04/journalism-in-the-open-the-201112-knight-mozilla-fellows-announced/
<paulc> test
<pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 14697] Harmonize roles with ARIA
<11http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011
Nov/0302.html>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Nov/0302.html
Testing TF work and plans
<paulc> Mark: Could we actually outsource the generation of tests
for HTML5
<eliot> scribe: eliot
<rubys> Art: I like the idea of more directed sponsorship
<rubys> Paulc: are we ready to outsource
KK: up front costs to hire omeone would be high. want to minimize
that.
<rubys> James: we haven't built detailed test plans
KK: test reviews have to go on. not sure where they'd come from
... Where would the talent come from? But it's still a possibility.
... Set up requirements and make clear what has to be done.
PC: I have experience in this. XML Query test suite >25k tests
... missed. US Gov't wrote thousands of the tests
... They had some tooling that they fed the spe into to generate
tests
... but also had peoplpe who were experts.
Look for XQuery test suite W3C
scribe: We seem to be concentrating on the browser venders. Have we
asked everyone who's going to benefint from HTML5?
<paulc>
http://dev.w3.org/2006/xquery-test-suite/PublicPagesStagingArea/
http://dev.w3.org/2006/xquery-test-suite/PublicPagesStagingArea/
<pimpbot> Title: XML Query Test Suite (at dev.w3.org)
James: We focus a lot on numbers--necessary--but quality is most
important.
... if we generate million tests but they don't find bugs, then
effect is minimal.
... need the ones who will write evil tests.
Ryoske: we had refactoring tests. turned out needed 10 to the 16th
tests. No way.
... important to catch the bugs
PC: XPath and XQuery tests went for core features first. Subsequent
tests assumed the core tests worked.
... tests got more complex on the outer edges.
Russel: So when do I get a gold star? How many tests do I have to
pass?
PC: W3C had workshop to see if they should do compliance testing
... given nonlegal structure it's unlikely that the W3C would do it.
W3C is not in the certification business. Implies huge otlays of
money.
... Do lots of validation testing. Company would use the test and
make a claim to their customers that they pass a certain number of
tests.
Mark Vickers: If we get these tests done, there's potential income
as a service.
scribe: Lots of possible tests. If someone else runs the test, the
legal responsibility moves.
... could provide regular income w/o w3c being in the certification
business.
Russel: Even if w3c doesn't want to be in the business, there's a
pressing need in various ecosystem to have cert programs.
... If w3c is going to present hundreds of thousand of tests, who
sets up the buckets of tests?
PLH: are you suggestin w3c sharee that burden?
Russel: yes
PLH: w3c is not in the positio to do that. it will take several
years. we have no plan.
Russel: for home network we do, for various components we go through
UL.
PC: the logos are expensive to create. w3c is not in that business
Russell: We are expressing an ecosystem need
PC: Different WGs in the W3c have gotten through rec with minimum
required tests
... divide to subfeatures. Create scenarios, and test for those. Get
same result from multiple implementations, then we're good.
... WGs have set criteria low and sometimes high. If you set for
certification, you set for infinity.
<anne> shall we write tests?
PC: it's important to talk about what needs to be done to get out of
CR.
plh: we rely on members to submit tests. w3c doesn't have staff for
this
... so far we are way far from the 200k numbers we'd need for html5
Wilhelm: Many cert programs have been deliberately harmful to the
success of the web.
... one group made a test suite and froze the test cases. Years
later another client came with those test cases. They didn't agree
with the way the web had evolved.
... not sure how to solve it, but cert is dangerous to the web.
Mark: Might be some benefit for w3c providing test suites.
... 2nd milestone in which tests are completed?
... we also just need to be practical about certification. It's
going to happen and the w3c should be involved.
... ideally at the infinite level, but more practical approach that
grows over time. becomes more complete.
... can do this and potentially generate income for w3c.
kk: great conversation. I think in terms of the customer.
... if you put a logo on something and FB doesn't work, do they
care?
... It's going to take a lot more than HTML. It's bigger that HTML.
Bigger than w3c.
... if you have something on a device and you want that to work for
years, it's going to take a lot.
... Great place to start the discussion.
... PLH to pass a hat for testing resources
Guiseppe: Not clear, is it a lack of money to close test cases?
pc: Maybe we're not organizing in the right direction.
plh: I told jeff i need 40 people and he said sure, give me the
money.
DSinger: If you're doing HTML5, you can differentiate by saying you
do more.
... if everyone else contributes tests and you don't you benefit.
... we urgently need to talk about how people who want to get
certified can contribute
DBarron: CSS2.1, test suite served 2 purposes: validate spec. Let
implementors converge.
... You have to stop at some point, but the test suite cont. to
evolved
pc: You can find this on the web, the static version used for CR and
the current contents of the repository.
DBarron: using test suites as a yard stick. the density of coverage
per test varies greatly.
... one test could be more precise than 10k other tests.
... Very concerned when a test is used for more than did you pass or
not?
Guiseppe: The are organizations interested. Sd organize and discuss:
how to work w/o freezing a test case. and to discuss collaboration.
MVickers: There is another group. Doing everything we can to use
HTML5., Driving the organization towards using w3c tests and not
another standard.
... will follow up and arrange for a meeting. first with Jeff and
then a subgroup of the HTML5 group.
kk: Members of the wg would help.
pc: plh is on point as the w3c person to take this idea and do
something about it.
<jgraham> http://hoppipolla.co.uk/talks/testing/testing.html
http://hoppipolla.co.uk/talks/testing/testing.html
<pimpbot> Title: Testing (at hoppipolla.co.uk)
pc: we'd like to get to some point where we have more people in the
room to generate tests
Testing HTML
Link above is to slides James is going through
James: Who has used Mercurial? Afew. Written a test for a working
group? Same few.
<pimpbot> Title: HTML WG f2f -- 04 Nov 2011 (at www.w3.org)
To get test in so you can edit, you clne the repository.
James: once you have the files, you can create a test
... a tests go into a directory
/tests/submissions/name_of_vendor/featurename
... we create a directory. Use your favorite editor.
... create the test and then commit the test locally. It's just in
your local repository, until you push.
<anne> "added 363 changesets with 2836 changes to 2081 files" o_O
been a while since I looked at this
James: to figure out what to test....quite important.
<anne> how do I figure out what to test?
<anne> that is, figure out what is already tested
James: not testing conformance criteria for authors. Looking for
implementor requirements.
<krisk>
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#tabular-data
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#tabular-data
<pimpbot> Title: 4.9 Tabular data HTML5 (at www.w3.org)
James: DOM interface has a bunch of properties. we might test for
them...
... caption property on <table> isaimed at authors. Never look at
text in green boxes.
... RFC2119 keyword is a tip.
"....MUST return the first caption element that is a child of the
table. If there aren't any, it must return NULL." This is something
we can test.
scribe: Writing JavaScript test: Testharness.js (link at end of
slides)
<wilhelm> Documentation for testharness.js:
http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js
http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js
scribe: create a function called test
... straightforward construction.
... see "Test for the Table API" in slides for code.
... test for two caption in forst case and no captions in the
second.
s//forst/first
scribe: that is simple, can be more complex. What happens if I
insert a caption using the DOM, etc.
...SteveFaulkner: Is it always OK to leave out child elements and
things?
James: when you're testing things you're not testing validity, so
yes.
<krisk> If you don't have Hg installed
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Download#Binary_packages
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Download#Binary_packages
<pimpbot> Title: Download - Mercurial (at mercurial.selenic.com)
Wilhelm: Gives an indication of how many tests we need. One sentence
and I can think of about ten things that need to be done.
Link is to Mercurial repository. Need to get Mercurial.
James: to find out what tests are needed, look at what's submitted,
or reach out to testing task force
... to run the test, run it in the browser. It says pass or fail.
You can add something to the assert message to make it more useful,
but in general, pass/fail.
... We have a way to link tests to a section of the spec
kk: it's a big spec. It's hard to know where it's from
Peter: Can link to any anchor
James: Theere's a guide to handle the tests
<pimpbot> Title: A Method for Writing Testable Conformance
Requirements (at www.w3.org)
James: if you're testing rendering, there's a process on the CSS
page
Are the guidelines?
James: Not really
plh: do we need some
James: if the test is right that's good enough
How to address interdependencies?
James: General guideline is to not make test depend on things. Test
the thing your testing only.
... you have to make some assumptions, but we try to make as few as
possible.
Ryoska: Do we expect tests to restore states?
<yosuke> s/Ryoska/Ryosuke/
James: In general encouraged.
DBaron: I would say that even more strongly.
kk: there are some situations where you can't avoid it. You can
comment that at the top of the test, if you need a clean cache or
something like that.
Guiseppe: aree they run in the same order?
James: No guarantees.
kk: they should pass in any order. No order is assumed.
James: maybe now is a good time to stop, pick a part of the spec and
write a test.
kk: Memory leak. We're supposed to validate that the normative parts
of the spec work. Not whether a feature causes a memory leak.
<krisk>
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Download#Binary_packages
--
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 00:28:06 UTC