- 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