proposed (rough) IRI agenda

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

proposed (rough) IRI agenda

Peter Saint-Andre-2
Here is a proposed (rough) agenda for the IRI WG session (Tuesday,
November 6) at IETF 85. Please bash the agenda on the list so that we
can upload the final agenda by the deadline next Monday. Note: all times
are local (Eastern Standard Time).

###

17:00-17:05 Intro, Logistics, Agenda Bashing (chairs)
17:05-17:25 draft-ietf-iri-3987bis (Larry Masinter, Martin Duerst)
17:25-17:40 draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines (Martin Duerst)
17:40-17:50 draft-ietf-iri-comparison (Larry Masinter)
17:50-18:00 draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg (Larry Masinter)
18:00-18:05 recent bulk registration experience (Dave Thaler)
18:05-18:15 URI/IRI/URL discussion with IETF/W3C/WHATWG (Larry Masinter)
18:15-18:30 Future direction of IRI WG (chairs)

###

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

update on URL testing and the W3C's test framework

Chris Weber-4
Hello, I wanted to share some of the progress that's being made in URL
testing.  About 600 test cases are available in JSON format here:

https://raw.github.com/cweb/url-testing/master/urls.json

Most of these have been collected from Webkit as referenced in the JSON
file. While usable, there's more work required before this could be
called stable:

- The "expected" results are currently based mostly on what Webkit
expects, as a majority of these are taken from Webkit's test framework.
- I plan to add a descriptive comment to each test case.
- I plan to curate each test case more closely to catch any errors in
the data.

My main question to the list:  How should the "expected results" be
determined for each test case?

I've also started building a test page, which is in a very rough
work-in-progress stage, located at http://www.lookout.net/test/url/.
It's based from Simon Pieters and the W3C test framework.  See
http://simon.html5.org/test/url/relative-resolution.html and
http://darobin.github.com/test-harness-tutorial/docs/using-testharness.html

More test cases and test groupings are always welcome.  For Web browser
testing, further plans include using a server-side component to test
equivalence between the DOM representation and what's sent on the wire
in a GET request.

Best regards,
Chris

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: update on URL testing and the W3C's test framework

Simon Pieters-3
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:27:32 +0100, Chris Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello, I wanted to share some of the progress that's being made in URL
> testing.  About 600 test cases are available in JSON format here:
>
> https://raw.github.com/cweb/url-testing/master/urls.json
>
> Most of these have been collected from Webkit as referenced in the JSON
> file. While usable, there's more work required before this could be
> called stable:
>
> - The "expected" results are currently based mostly on what Webkit
> expects, as a majority of these are taken from Webkit's test framework.
> - I plan to add a descriptive comment to each test case.
> - I plan to curate each test case more closely to catch any errors in
> the data.
>
> My main question to the list:  How should the "expected results" be
> determined for each test case?

I think we should either keep the expected results be the WebKit expected  
results for now and see where other implementations disagree with WebKit,  
or change the expected result to match Anne's URL spec and see where  
implementations disagree with the spec. In the end, I think the expected  
results should match Anne's URL spec.

Note that the existing RFCs don't define an expected result for invalid  
URLs, which are being tested.

> I've also started building a test page, which is in a very rough
> work-in-progress stage, located at http://www.lookout.net/test/url/.
> It's based from Simon Pieters and the W3C test framework.  See
> http://simon.html5.org/test/url/relative-resolution.html and
> http://darobin.github.com/test-harness-tutorial/docs/using-testharness.html
>
> More test cases and test groupings are always welcome.  For Web browser
> testing, further plans include using a server-side component to test
> equivalence between the DOM representation and what's sent on the wire
> in a GET request.

Very nice.

One way to generate many tests is to loop through a set of code points or  
escape sequences you are interested in (e.g. %00-%FF or all of BMP as raw  
characters) and inserting it in different places in a URL (scheme, user,  
password, host, port, path, query, fragment). It's also interesting to  
test characters in the host that have different rules between IDNA2003 and  
IDNA2008.

> Best regards,
> Chris

cheers
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: update on URL testing and the W3C's test framework

Julian Reschke
In reply to this post by Chris Weber-4
On 2012-11-07 04:27, Chris Weber wrote:

> Hello, I wanted to share some of the progress that's being made in URL
> testing.  About 600 test cases are available in JSON format here:
>
> https://raw.github.com/cweb/url-testing/master/urls.json
>
> Most of these have been collected from Webkit as referenced in the JSON
> file. While usable, there's more work required before this could be
> called stable:
>
> - The "expected" results are currently based mostly on what Webkit
> expects, as a majority of these are taken from Webkit's test framework.
 > ...

And we need to be very careful with that. We know for a fact that Webkit
differs a lot from Firefox and IE, and in some cases FF and IE are more
conforming than Webkit and apparently get away with that (fragment
identifier in data URI comes to mind).

Best regards, Julian