Re: [Various implementers] implementation effort for defaults (action-486 and action-489)

Hey Felix,

I have no problem re-running tests. Just let me know when the defaults have
been settled on so I can begin to work on them. Any idea when these
defaults will be settled on?

Leroy


On 16 April 2013 09:27, Mārcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@tilde.lv> wrote:

> Hi Felix,
>
> Ok, thanks. Now I understood. Stable version by April 24 is fine for us.
> And testing finalised by mid May is also fine for us.
>
> Best regards,
> Mārcis ;o)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:23 AM
> To: Mārcis Pinnis
> Cc: Ankit Srivastava; Dominic Jones; Leroy Finn; Clemens Weins; Karl
> Fritsche; 'Thomas Ruedesheim'; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org; Artūrs
> Vasiļevskis; Pēteris Ņikiforovs
> Subject: Re: [Various implementers] implementation effort for defaults
> (action-486 and action-489)
>
> Hi Mārcis,
>
> Am 16.04.13 10:13, schrieb Mārcis Pinnis:
> > Hi Felix,
> >
> > I would like to clarify: does this mean that we will have to perform
> additional TestSuite tests?
>
> No, but that you will have to re-run tests.
>
> >
> > Also ... I did not understand from your e-mail what you meant with:
> "whether you will have the resources needed for testing the defaults" ?
>
> Sorry for being unclear: I meant time resources, that is personell to
> re-run the tests.
>
> >   What did you mean by resources. We currently do not have test cases -
> will these be created by someone? Also ... I assume that parsing HTML5
> without defaults and with defaults will have two different TestSuite
> outputs (must have).
>
>
> No - we are currently discussing to have defaults normatively. This would
> then mean that each implementation would follow the defaults, so no need to
> have different test suite outputs.
>
> If we don't have normative defaults at all, we also won't need testing.
> But from the discussion in the last weeks and from last call, the general
> consensus was that for HTML normative defaults would be useful.
> Also, to align to HTML5 as much as possible.
>
> >   This may require some additional development in order to get the
> outputs out from the parser.
> >
> > In our use-case we currently have a default list integrated, but at this
> point it probably differs from the list on the Wiki page. Therefore, it is
> important that the Default list on the Wiki gets stabilised as soon as
> possible.
>
> I totally agree - would the timeline written below work for you, that is
> stabilize defaults by 24 April?
>
> >   I would also like to remind that we have a schedule for our
> development efforts and that will be exceeded somewhere around the middle
> of May (after that we will wrap-up the deliverables from our side). So ...
> not to push anyone, but if the discussions get carried away we may not be
> able to implement all the changes that will appear after our development
> efforts will be finalised.
>
> I understand the schedule - the motivation of my mail was to assure that
> there are enough resources (= dev effort) available. From what you are
> saying the schedule below would rather be "finalize testing by mid May".
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mārcis ;o)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:48 AM
> > To: Ankit Srivastava; Dominic Jones; Leroy Finn; Clemens Weins; Karl
> Fritsche; Mārcis Pinnis; 'Thomas Ruedesheim'
> > Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> > Subject: [Various implementers] implementation effort for defaults
> > (action-486 and action-489)
> >
> > Dear Ankit, Dom / Leroy, Clemens / Karl, Marcis, Thomas,
> >
> > we are currently discussing defaults for HTML5 processing. See the
> > current thinking at
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/HTML5_Defaults
> >
> > With this mail I want to check whether you will have the resources
> needed for testing the defaults. This seems to be critical for "Translate"
> and "Elements Within Text", since most of the tests here have already been
> done. So re-doing the tests with defaults would mean:
> > 1) not providing new input files, no need to change these
> > 2) provide reference output files
> > 3) provide "your" output files
> >
> > I am putting Dom / Leroy into the loop as well, for the reference output
> files.
> >
> > The proposed time line would be:
> >
> > - Decide on defaults within the next week, that is by 24 April
> > - Start testing with defaults before the Bled f2f. Discuss testing
> > issues in Bled
> > - Finalize the testing within May.
> >
> > Would that work for you timewise? If I don't hear back from you I'd
> assume that this is OK.
> >
> > Note that this topic is important for other implementers as well (e.g.
> > Linguaserve), but we had discussed that already during last week's call
> and I think we have the commitment already - let me know otherwise.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for you help in advance,
> >
> > Felix
>
>