| 02:36 | <MikeSmith> | https://twitter.com/sebmarkbage/status/435113501447573504 "I guess I'm curious if W3C specs are really efficiently policing diverging user level paradigms and even if it is. Is that important?" |
| 02:37 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder what "efficiently policing diverging user level paradigms" means |
| 02:45 | <nessy> | SamB: that's all good then :-) |
| 08:36 | <zcorpan> | annevk-cloud: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2014Feb/0048.html shouldn't sendBeacon send a Referer? |
| 08:37 | <zcorpan> | annevk-cloud: "API referrer source" is different depending on global env |
| 13:19 | <MikeSmith> | weird, I get https://raw.github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/master/spec/service_worker/index.html as text/plain in desktop but rendered HTML on mobile |
| 13:21 | <MikeSmith> | hmm maybe because it redirects to https on desktop but not on mobile |
| 13:30 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: try https://rawgithub.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/master/spec/service_worker/index.html |
| 13:31 | <zcorpan> | (don't know why the other url wouldn't be text/plain on mobile though) |
| 13:31 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah |
| 13:31 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 13:47 | <zcorpan> | https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/800 seems like a good example of "test is testing what it thinks it is testing" |
| 13:48 | <jgraham> | *isn't? |
| 13:48 | <zcorpan> | or maybe "The test fails when it's supposed to fail" |
| 13:49 | <zcorpan> | i mean they fail at it |
| 13:49 | <zcorpan> | http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html |
| 13:51 | <jgraham> | Yeah, I think I know what you mean :) But I think your original sentence needed an extra negative somewhere to be clear |
| 14:08 | <zcorpan> | what is our story for manual tests? https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/803 |
| 14:09 | <gsnedders> | "Cry." |
| 14:11 | <jgraham> | Yep, the tears of gsnedders are like holy water to a vampire. Just a few drops on a manual test and it will fizz and dissolve into the æther. |
| 14:12 | <jgraham> | But actually the policy is to name them -manual and hope that in the future we can convert them to WebDriver tests |
| 14:13 | <wilhelm> | Deleting them sounds wrong, unless those features are tested automatically elsewhere. |
| 14:14 | <jgraham> | Yeah. I'm not sure if those specific tests are good tests, but it needs someone to decide that rather than just deleting them all |
| 14:14 | <jgraham> | (maybe foolip already did, I don't know) |
| 14:53 | <zcorpan> | stevef++ in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24679 |
| 15:01 | <foolip> | jgraham: most of the ones I removed say things like "passes if the audio is playing without sound heard" which can't be automated with any existing framework |
| 15:02 | <foolip> | but I'll close the review/PR anyway, since my assumption that manual tests should be nuked was wrong |
| 15:04 | <jgraham> | foolip: OK, thanks |
| 15:05 | <jgraham> | foolip: A PR to add -manual to the names of manual tests would be much appreciated |
| 15:05 | <foolip> | jgraham: will that now |
| 15:12 | <foolip> | jgraham: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/646 |
| 15:16 | <foolip> | zcorpan: about https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/showcomment?chain=2370 do you think it would be useful to have an obsolete.html or some such to collect tests for non-support of various features? |
| 15:16 | <zcorpan> | foolip: yeah. i think dom testsuite has a file called historical.html |
| 15:17 | <foolip> | zcorpan: ok, I'll start one of those for media then |
| 15:20 | <foolip> | zcorpan: whatwg.org/html#embedded-content-0 indicates to me that the -0 in html/semantics/embedded-content-0/ is not really useful |
| 15:22 | <zcorpan> | it should be http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-1.html#embedded-content-1 |
| 15:22 | <zcorpan> | but with a stable id |
| 15:23 | <Ms2ger> | FileAPI has historical.html too |
| 15:23 | <foolip> | how could it be stable given that the -n is generated by anolis? |
| 15:23 | <foolip> | zcorpan: you mean ask hixie to make it stable? |
| 15:23 | <zcorpan> | foolip: yeah |
| 15:24 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: would you WONTFIX a bug asking you to set id="" to all sections in the spec, three levels deep? |
| 15:24 | <foolip> | zcorpan: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24694 |
| 15:24 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: web-platform-tests uses section id as basis for the directory structure so it's a problem that they are not stable |
| 15:29 | <gsnedders> | Pretty certain Hixie claims that that's no more of a problem than the fact that the tests become invalid because of oter spec changes |
| 15:29 | <jgraham> | Well |
| 15:29 | <jgraham> | It sort of is |
| 15:31 | <foolip> | given that these are scoped to directories, couldn't we just not include the -0 in the name? |
| 15:39 | <foolip> | zcorpan: historical.html for <video auto=muted> in https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/801 |
| 15:41 | <zcorpan> | reviewed |
| 15:45 | <zcorpan> | foolip: how do you mean not include the -0? |
| 15:47 | <foolip> | zcorpan: I mean simply name the directory html/semantics/embedded-content/ |
| 15:47 | <foolip> | but I guess let's see what Hixie says first |
| 15:48 | <zcorpan> | foolip: how would you know which section in the spec the tests map to? |
| 15:48 | <Ms2ger> | It has been claimed that the exact mapping to spec IDs is important |
| 15:49 | <zcorpan> | i thought the main reason to have this structure is to annotate the spec with links to the tests |
| 15:55 | <foolip> | ok, if there are scripts that rely on the IDs then I suppose there's no shortcuts |
| 15:56 | <jgraham> | At the very least darobin has a script that gets you the test directory given (something). Which I think probably relies on the ID |
| 15:57 | <darobin> | yeah, it's somewhere in the tools |
| 15:58 | <jgraham> | Of course no one else can run it because node ;) |
| 16:07 | <Hixie> | having spec links in tests imho is a bad idea, because specs test many things, so one link isn't going to help. also, that link will get stale, so it just causes unnecessary churn. |
| 16:07 | <Hixie> | but that's separate from the issue of stable IDs |
| 16:07 | <Hixie> | if there's a particular heading that needs a stable heading ID, file a bug |
| 16:08 | <Hixie> | i won't do it to all headings, but i will to specific ones |
| 16:09 | <Hixie> | in other news, it's come to my attention that chaals is mailing people privately telling them to post to public-html instead of whatwg. |
| 16:09 | <Hixie> | stay classy chaals. |
| 16:15 | <foolip> | Hixie: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24694 is a specific one that would make me happy |
| 16:16 | <Hixie> | noted |
| 16:19 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: tests can have multiple spec links |
| 16:20 | <Hixie> | how many of them point to the "in body" parser insertion mode, the "navigate" section, the "html" element section, etc? |
| 16:22 | <jgraham> | Hixie: I think there is a certain extent to which the perfect is the enemy of the good here |
| 16:22 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: it's not useful to link to everything that a test happens to rely on, but it can be useful to point to things that a test is intended to be testing |
| 16:23 | <jgraham> | Although I am generally opposed to metadata, saying that a test [oh zcorpan just said it] |
| 16:26 | <Hixie> | in my experience, tests usually find bugs you're not intending to find. |
| 16:27 | <zcorpan> | so? |
| 16:27 | <Hixie> | *shrug* |
| 16:27 | <Hixie> | i find the link to be bad because it misleads people into thinking the section is relevant |
| 16:28 | <Hixie> | rather than having them try to find the section from first principles, which avoids them making the same mistake as the test writer |
| 16:28 | <Hixie> | but whatever |
| 16:28 | <Hixie> | you do as you like :-) |
| 16:29 | zcorpan | gotta go |
| 16:31 | <jgraham> | I think having a rough mapping of tests to spec sections is pretty useful to get a coarse view of which tests are *expected* to exercise a particular part of the spec, to find obvious gaps in the coverage, and to find tests that are likely invalid if a section undergoes a major rewrite or is removed. They are not useful as a tool for debugging a failing test |
| 16:34 | <gsnedders> | Though as opjsunit shows, we did end up with a testSiteRegressions_0.js file :) |
| 16:47 | <foolip> | jgraham: can you finish https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/801 so that I merge before sleep? |
| 16:48 | <jgraham> | foolip: Done. I assume you want to squash and merge? |
| 16:49 | <foolip> | jgraham: of course |
| 16:50 | <foolip> | jgraham: you can do https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/812 too if you like, or leave it to zcorpan :) |
| 16:57 | <jgraham> | foolip: I might leave that to zcorpan if you don't mind |
| 17:37 | <foolip> | jgraham: np |
| 21:35 | <Hixie> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#overview-of-the-parsing-model vs http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/parsing.html#overview-of-the-parsing-model |
| 21:35 | <Hixie> | in chrome i get a different object entirely in the floating object... |
| 21:35 | <Hixie> | wtf |
| 21:35 | <Hixie> | the markup is identical |
| 22:20 | <scott_gonzalez> | smaug____: I talked to the jQuery team and the only case we know of for sync XHR is beforeunload. |
| 22:20 | <scott_gonzalez> | smaug____: Devs tend to use it for form validation as well, but that should really be handled async with event.preventDefault() in a submit event handler. |
| 22:31 | <smaug____> | scott_gonzalez: right |
| 22:32 | <smaug____> | scott_gonzalez: gecko now warns about sync xhr except when used in beforeunload/unload/pagehide event listeners |
| 22:32 | <scott_gonzalez> | That sounds reasonable. |
| 22:32 | <scott_gonzalez> | I guess you'll start warning in those once beacon lands? |
| 22:33 | <smaug____> | right |
| 22:33 | <smaug____> | hmm, did beacon land |
| 22:33 | <smaug____> | didn't |
| 22:34 | <smaug____> | ah, some test fixes still needed |
| 22:34 | smaug____ | needs to also ask sicking about the stability of beacon |
| 22:34 | <smaug____> | scott_gonzalez: do you think jQuery could actually disable sync XHR at some point |
| 22:35 | <scott_gonzalez> | In some magical future, yes. |
| 22:35 | <scott_gonzalez> | I've already convinced the team to deprecate $.ajax in favor of separate APIs for each type of transport. |
| 22:36 | <scott_gonzalez> | So there would be $.xhr() and it would only support async XHR. |
| 22:36 | <scott_gonzalez> | The question is whether we can get to a point where we ship jQuery without $.ajax(). |
| 22:37 | <scott_gonzalez> | Here's my proposal if you're interested: http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/14509 |
| 23:41 | <pdr> | w3.org is down. How will the web ever move forward now |