- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:04:43 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
Summary: - Discussed charter. CR exit criteria has errors, and everything's dependency on CSS2.1 needs to be noted. - Discussed Color module. Publication request will be sent out today. - Discussed new test suite harness. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2008Apr/0027.html for background information. (The prototype is currently running as Member-only until it's been vetted for correctness/security. It will eventually be public and open source.) - Discussed need to build a test management system to handle submissions, reviews, and test suite coverage reports. - Discussed whether forming a CSS Test Suite Interest Group would be a useful exercise, if it would generate interest and activity from people not in the WG or only overhead for W3C. =============================================================================== Attendees: David Baron Bert Bos Giorgi Chavchanidze Arron Eicholz Elika Etemad Ming Gao Melinda Grant Anne van Kesteren (via IRC) Peter Linss Alex Mogilevsky David Singer Jason Cranford Teague ScribeNick: fantasai <anne> Regrets + anne <anne> (also for the next three weeks, as I'm on holiday) Charter ------- Peter: I updated charter with Chris's feedback Peter: Any comments? <plinss> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/draft-charter2.html <plinss> http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/2008/proposed-charter.html Melinda: I have a concern Melinda: Bullet number three we say "..." Melinda: We should say "for each feature" Melinda: It sounds like we musth have two complete implementations of the entire CSS2.1 rather than two implementations of each feature, etc. Peter needs to check the process document <melinda> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/ <melinda> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr #2 David: Why was the wording about potentially merging and splitting modules taken out? Peter: Since adding new modules would be done by amending the charter anyway David: What would happen with the SVG features module that's being discussed? David: Does that require rechartering? David: Does it require amending the charter? David: Or can we just do it? Melinda: I didn't see any wording in the charter said that items not in the deliverables list can't be advanced along REC track Peter: That's how we plan to interpret it, but I didn't want to specifically call that out Peter: We do want to focus on our deliverables and not get sidetracked Peter: but I also don't want us to get stuck in charter process Peter: Wrt CSS-SVG thing.. I'm not sure if that fits our definition of working with other groups Melinda: We might want to ask Chris how he thinks we should handle these kinds of emergent things dsinger: On the subject on other material, we can always discuss things on the mailing list and work on it dsinger: but getting formal time on it, that requires having it in the charter Peter: our focus should be driving our deliverables to REC dbaron: I can see this CSS-SVG thing advancing quickly enough that we might have multiple implementations by the end of this charter period * Bert notices a symmetry: after 2 Recs in 11 years, we now promise 11 Recs in 2 years... dbaron: Do we want to just let that slip? Peter: how do we split this with SVG? dbaron: I think if we're adding features to CSS, it should be in CSS Peter: Isn't there something about changing interpretations of SVG? dbaron: there might have been a few details <melinda> Bert, what could go wrong? <Bert> :-) Peter: I'll make a note to ask Chris about cross-group issues, where that should live in our charter, using this as an example ACTION: Peter talk with Chris about cross-group issues Bert: I think 11 RECs is a bit much Bert: We have a list of priority things... Bert: You really think we can make 11 RECs in just two years? dbaron: Why did Paged Media get bumped up? Elika: We're planning to publish Last Call this year Elika: Doesn't make sense to amend charter right after it gets approved Peter: A lot of the things in the list are small and/or far along Elika: A lot of them depend on CSS2.1 Melinda: I think even if we only worked on CSS2.1, it would be a stretch to finish it in 2 years fantasai agrees Bert still thinks variables should not be on our charter Bert: That's an architectural concern, not a process concern Peter: I hear your argument, but if we have implementors who want to work on it, we need <dsinger> perhaps each of the 11 should have a calendar, to show what needs done by when dsinger: I wonder if for each of the 11 we have a calendar to show what needs to be done by when dsinger: otherwise we'll procrastinate until the end of the 2 years and realize that we can't finish them all Melinda: We maybe don't need it in the charter, but it would be a good companion document Peter: Do we call out dependencies anywhere? fantasai: Most docs depend on CSS2.1. If it doesn't make it, most things won't make it Melinda: only Selectors doesn't fantasai: Should put that in the charter. Any other dependencies can be tweaked out, but anything that depends on CSS2.1 depends on CSS2.1 fantasai: If 2.1 doesn't make it to REC, almost nothing else will no matter how ready fantasai: Only Selectors and Media Queries are independent Peter: I will call out the dependency on 2.1 in the charter ACTION: Peter update charter in response to Melinda's comment on CR crit and 2.1 dep <anne> (FWIW, I think both Media Queries and Selectors have a grammar dependency on CSS 2.1) Color Module ------------ Peter: We have permission to publish LC Peter: Chris says we don't need to ask for permission here dbaron: That was the transition request. What about the pub request? dbaron: Did you request a publication date? Peter: no dbaron: I'll work on that then Peter: Where are we with implementation reports? dbaron: We're in good shape for implementations, but don't have reports Peter: Can we generate those by the end of the LC period? dbaron: Once the LC is published, the test suite will reflect a published spec dbaron: then we can request implementation reports ACTION: dbaron prepare implementation report template for CSS3 Color Marquee ------- Peter: Ready for LC? fantasai: no. Still some issues with marquee-direction table fantasai: sent message to www-style this morning ... Peter: Let's not get into the technical discussion here Peter: revisit in a week Test Suite Harness ------------------ Peter: Wanted to let everyone know that there's a demo version online dbaron: what does it do? fantasai: Records pass/fail results. Anyone can stop by, run a few tests, and leave. It can compile implementation reports from that. Uses UA string to identify an implementation. <Bert> http://www.w3.org/2008/07/test-harness-css/ Peter: the goal is to make it easy to do implementation reports <fantasai> MWI test harness it is based off of : http://www.w3.org/2007/03/mth/harness fantasai: it's Member-only until Dom has a chance to review the code * Bert sees the report generator currently crashes :-) Peter: The other thing I want to discuss, we've been tossing idea of building a test management system Peter: Allow people to submit tests, manage reviews and approvals, etc. Peter: I don't think there's anything out there, we'd have to build one Peter: HP is interested in contributing resources, wanted to put out a call to see if anyone else is interested Peter: I'm not asking for answers or commitments, just give a thought Peter: If there are questions about why or what's the value, let's hear them Peter: I think having a system like this rapidly in place would be a big win for us, for CSS2.1 test suite in particular Peter: If there's something open source out there that we can use, can be modified, etc. that will get us there rapidly, let us know? Peter: We could use any able-bodied hands that can write PHP or whatever dbaron: I wonder if we're being too picky about review reqs for the test suite dbaron: Maybe we don't need as formal a review process as we have dbaron: We should be trying to just get tests in fantasai: You pointed out that since tests drive interoperability, wrong tests drive interoperability on wrong behavior. dbaron: Implementors can catch incorrect tests Melinda: We *are* catching incorrect tests during the review process Melinda: If we collected the thousands of tests on the Web, we could have a test suite with a lot of tests. Won't know how correct it is, or how much coverage dbaron: My worry is that, if I want to contribute tests I don't know if the tests I want to write are in progress or if they're actually missing Peter: That's one problem we want to solve with this test management system Peter: It will include tests that have been submitted, tests that are in the system Peter: One problem is tests ar currently hosted on submitters site, etc. <anne> (I agree with dbaron that implementors will easily catch incorrect tests.) Peter: I think it would be very beneficial for us to build software here <fantasai> (anne, but not incorrect specs, which is something else I've been catching) <anne> (Implementors are usually the ones catching spec bugs in my experience.) Test Suite Interest Group ------------------------- Peter: any thoughts? Melinda: I think it'd just be more overhead unless we identify the set of people who can really focus on this Bert: I'm sure there are people who are good in making test suites. Bert: We are not that kind of people Bert: Maybe we aren't attracting that kind of people because we aren't that kind of people dbaron: I don't think we're not that kind of people dbaron: I think the not finishing the test suite is another problem, but I don't think you'll be able to pull in random people who aren't good CSS people and have them write good CSS tests Peter: I think the question is, there are people out there who could be involved, would we be more likely to get people involved by forming a separate interest group, or is just informally coordinating through our group enough? Bert: How would that affect the organizations that we represent? Would it make a difference to any colleagues? Melinda: HP has maybe one person Peter: I think HP has been demonstrating that we're dedicated to the test suites whether or not there's an interest group Jason: I have a request from someone at AOL who is interested in joining this group. He might be someone to work on tests Peter: I think the benefit of Interest Group is to allow non-W3C-Members to be formally involved. I think that's the only thing we'd gain by forming an interest group Peter: Is that worth the extra overhead? (for W3C, for participants in this group) Peter: I see advantages and disadvantages Melinda: Could ask www-style if anyone would be interested in joining to work on tests one day per week <dsinger> if making progress on items people care about have dates for test suites % completion, I bet we'll see more activity fantasai: I think having a test day is a great idea fantasai: Mozilla does something like that with bug days Bert: I don't think test suites are inspiring enough <dsinger> test suites are inspiring if their absence has negative consequences (like, you get dropped from the charter and you won't get published) fantasai: we have several volunteers on the public test list who are writing tests because they think it's interesting fantasai: I need help reviewing their tests * Bert didn't know that sense of the word "inspiring" :-) <dbaron> fantasai, is there a list somewhere of the tests that have been contributed that need review? Melinda: I'd like to see a milestone schedule for CSS2.1, although i don't know how to make one though <fantasai> dbaron, I can't remember atm, I'll ping you after the meeting melinda: Maybe Elika and I can discuss and toss something out next week <dbaron> fantasai, not just for me... the list should be publicly available somewhere from Style/CSS/Test/ <fantasai> yes, you're absolutely right Meeting closed <fantasai> I think I had a place to put that, but I don't remember if I updated it * fantasai adds that to to-do list <fantasai> anne, Implementors may be catching spec bugs, but I'm also running into spec bugs just by reviewing tests and noticing that the spec doesn't justify their assertions
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 19:05:22 UTC