Re: WebPlatform Browser Support phased approach?

Thanks much, Ronald!

+1 on the table option for this first phase, so we can get the CSS
properties out.

J
----------------------------
julee@adobe.com
@adobejulee





-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Mansveld <ronald@ronaldmansveld.nl>
Date: Friday, November 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "public-webplatform-tests@w3.org" <public-webplatform-tests@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WebPlatform Browser Support phased approach?

>It have been some pretty productive days, with both ups and downs.
>
>the data from both CIU and H5T have been pretty easy to parse, mostly
>because this data is already available in JSON-format. MDN-data is a
>different story though.
>
>At this point, the MDN-data is _not_ available as JSON. I can get a
>JSON-feed, but that only states that a compatibility-section is
>available. It doesn't give the data. So, I had to resort to scraping.
>
>However, even though the data may be in a table, which makes the
>general parsing pretty easy, some of the data actually isn't that nice
>embedded in tags. For instance: the version-numbers for prefixed use and
>non-prefixed use are only separated by a line-break.
>
>I've come a long way, but it most certainly isn't yet at the level I
>want it to be. So I'm actually thinking of not even trying to parse the
>MDN-data, and just use the HTML-table as is.
>
>By parsing the CIU and H5T data into tables of the same formatting, we
>still can have a uniformed layout on the site.
>
>
>I have been given a contact within MDN, so I'll try to work with them
>to make the data available as JSON, so we can do a better integration
>after this first phase.
>
>
>Any thoughts/comments?
>
>I'll continue working once I'm back in NL, if no-one objects, I'd like
>to go for the table option, which could be up and running pretty soon. I
>don't see too many downsides, given the fact this is just a temporary
>solution so we can go live with the CSS-part of the site, and a more
>future-proof solution will be build once this is up and running.
>
>
>Ronald
>
>
>
>
>Doug Schepers schreef op 2013-10-30 17:59:
>> Hi, Ronald­
>> 
>> Thanks for the update! Looking forward to seeing it.
>> 
>> Since we eventually plan to have tests for each assertion, and
>> results based on running those tests against browsers (versions, OSs,
>> etc.), it makes the most sense to expand the data from MDN to a
>> version-range, if that's doable. That will be the most consistent with
>> our plans.
>> 
>> Note that in reality, there are regressions. For example, Chrome has
>> dropped support for MathML, and other browsers have dropped features
>> as well (e.g. some SVG stuff). But we'll deal with that once the
>> infrastructure for reporting test results is more mature.
>> 
>> Regards-
>> -Doug
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/30/13 11:29 AM, Ronald Mansveld wrote:
>>> OK, I've come a long way so far. There is just one decision to be
>>> made:
>>> 
>>> MDN provides the compat data not per version, but rather a
>>> since-version.
>>> 
>>> Both caniuse and html5test provide the data per version (where
>>> available).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What do we want to use? I can collapse the data from caniuse and
>>> html5test to a since version pretty easily. Expanding the data from
>>> MDN from a since-version up to a complete version-range might be
>>> doable as well, although I have to rely on the browser-data provided
>>> in the feeds from CIU and H5T to determine what versions are
>>> available.
>>> 
>>> Anyone with arguments towards or against either option?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ronald
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Doug Schepers schreef op 2013-10-29 06:18:
>>>> Hi, Ronald­
>>>> 
>>>> Since we're going with this phased approach (which I fully
>>>> support), I think we should do 2 things:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Use the MDN data as the baseline, since they have fairly
>>>> complete data and a similar feature level as WPD (e.g., they have
>>>> basically the same page names as we do); this means you'll have to
>>>> collect this data via MDN's API;
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Supplement that baseline data with CanIUse and HTML5Test data
>>>> where there is an equivalent feature name (e.g. "border-radius");
>>>> we'll have to wait for QuirksMode and MobileHTML5 data until we
>>>> have the source for that, but we will launch an "explainer" page
>>>> that tells about all our data sources and our timeline.
>>>> 
>>>> Does this seem like a doable approach?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards- -Doug
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/23/13 9:24 PM, Julee wrote:
>>>>> Thanks much, Ronald! And everyone who is sharing their data as
>>>>> is!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've sent feelers out regarding a work space in London next week.
>>>>>  Will let you know if I hear anything.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the meantime, do you have a sense of how long it might take
>>>>> to normalize this phase-1 data? No biggie, just looking to fill
>>>>> out the CSS-properties schedule.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Julee ---------------------------- julee@adobe.com @adobejulee
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Mansveld
>>>>> <ronald@ronaldmansveld.nl> Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:47
>>>>> PM To: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com> Cc: Niels Leenheer
>>>>> <info@html5test.com>, julee <julee@adobe.com>,
>>>>> "public-webplatform-tests@w3.org"
>>>>> <public-webplatform-tests@w3.org> Subject: Re: WebPlatform
>>>>> Browser Support phased approach?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alex Komoroske schreef op 2013-10-22 17:48:
>>>>>>> I strongly support a phased approach. I'm very excited about
>>>>>>> the prospect of having a more robust system set up, but as
>>>>>>> far as the CSS Properties launch goes, it's more important to
>>>>>>> have _something_, even if it's just a one-time import from a
>>>>>>> couple of sources.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I feel like there is support to do a phased approach, plus we
>>>>>> have access to a (basic) set of data to get started. Coupled
>>>>>> with the urgency to get CSS live (which I absolutely support,
>>>>>> we've been in alpha long enough now ;) ), I think this is
>>>>>> indeed the right path to follow. Plus, this buys us time to
>>>>>> come up with a good plan and schemata for the data-exchange we
>>>>>> want to use in the future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Next week I'll be in London, if anyone knows a place to work
>>>>>> for me I can start building the first scripts to parse the
>>>>>> data. I've checked out the Mozilla Open Office, but to me it's
>>>>>> pretty unclear whether that is still in use, and if so: if and
>>>>>> how I can use it. Do we have any Mozilla-employees on the list?
>>>>>> Or do we have Googlers that know if perhaps the Google office
>>>>>> can be used? Or any Londoners that know of a place?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Worst case scenario I think I can use the City Business
>>>>>> Library, but my experience is that libraries are not always the
>>>>>> best place to work from, especially not if you try to make full
>>>>>> office hours.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ronald
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>

Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 17:11:47 UTC