W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2013

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

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:27:12 +0200
Message-ID: <516D1970.2010808@w3.org>
To: Leroy Finn <finnle@tcd.ie>
CC: Mārcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@tilde.lv>, Ankit Srivastava <asrivastava@computing.dcu.ie>, Dominic Jones <Dominic.Jones@scss.tcd.ie>, Clemens Weins <Clemens.Weins@cocomore.com>, Karl Fritsche <karl.fritsche@cocomore.com>, Thomas Ruedesheim <thomas.ruedesheim@lucysoftware.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, Artūrs Vasiļevskis <arturs.vasilevskis@tilde.lv>, Pēteris Ņikiforovs <peteris.nikiforovs@tilde.lv>
Am 16.04.13 10:58, schrieb Leroy Finn:
> Hey Felix,
>
> I have no problem re-running tests.

Great.

> 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?

I would propose the deadline next week, that ist 24 April - see below.

  Felix

>
> Leroy
>
>
> On 16 April 2013 09:27, Mārcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@tilde.lv 
> <mailto: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 <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
>     <mailto: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 <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
>     <mailto: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
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 09:27:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:07 UTC