Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format
On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: Hey Chaals, What makes you think that your pious and arrogant attitude makes you a moderator? You have no right to dictate what I can say. The fact that Chaals is a co-Chair of the Web Applications working group makes him a moderator of this mailing list, whatever you may think of his attitude. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/charter/ As co-Chair, it his responsibility to ensure the W3C Process is followed. The Individual Participation Criteria in the charter require, among other things, Social competence in one's role. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#ParticipationCriteria Your repeated rudeness, hostility, personal attacks on Working Group members and lack of constructive contribution demonstrate a significant lack of social competence. I commend Chaals on his decision to help you stick to the Individual Participation Criteria. Should you continue to fail to do so, I hope he will take appropriate measures to keep you from disrupting the Working Group further. Regards, Maciej And this: Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is *not* Private mail. Only you would know why you mailed multiple people and called it private. I'm putting this on the list so we can see what kind of person Chaals is. It looks like you took it upon yourself to go out of your way to describe me as inappropriate, accusatory, counter-productive and attacking. You then asked me to stick to demonstrable facts. We don't really know why you did this. I pointed out the OP's mistakes, asked him some questions, and followed with my opinion of the relevance of YUI Test (Re Hallvord's Comments). Nobody should discourage code reviews. Especially not for code that is supposed to be taken seriously. Garrett -- Forwarded message -- From: Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM Subject: Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format To: Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private mail: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:56:35 +0200, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Carmelo Montanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Folks: I am getting ready to submit a number of tests and wanted to get your feedback on format. We already agreed on a template a few weeks back. This follows on that format. Just wanted to get your view before I go forward. See attached files. You obviously did not try running this in any browser. Hi Garrett, please refrain from making assumptions about what people do. Opening a mail with an accusatory or attacking tone of this nature is counter-productive, and therefore inappropriate for this working group. Please keep your comments to demonstrable facts and a more positive tone in future. thanks Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://www.opera.com
Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: Hey Chaals, What makes you think that your pious and arrogant attitude makes you a moderator? You have no right to dictate what I can say. The fact that Chaals is a co-Chair of the Web Applications working group makes him a moderator of this mailing list, whatever you may think of his attitude. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/charter/ As co-Chair, it his responsibility to ensure the W3C Process is followed. The Individual Participation Criteria in the charter require, among other things, Social competence in one's role. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#ParticipationCriteria Your repeated rudeness, hostility, personal attacks on Working Group members and lack of constructive contribution demonstrate a significant lack of social competence. Oh really. So, Maciej, where exactly did you get your degree in internet behaviorology? Please explain this, because what you wrote sounds like a personal character attack (to me). You're responses to me have always been hostile/negative. You've *never once* replied to *any* personal mail I've sent you, even when you initiated. Yes I've pointed out your mistakes on the list but never in a nasty way. You strike me as someone who is somewhat intelligent, not used to being criticized, and (although I've never mentioned it) extremely arrogant. I usually just dismiss your attitude as unimportant and focus on whatever substance you have to say. I get the sense that you have developed a personal dislike and I think that you picking up this thread to say stuff like that proves it. I commend Chaals on his decision to help you stick to the Of course you would commend Chaals, even for something he didn't do, if it had a way to insult me. You have demonstrated that you have a personal problem with me. I am an individual. I am not representing a company, so that is a fairly safe move. Individual Participation Criteria. Should you continue to fail to do so, I hope he will take appropriate measures to keep you from disrupting the Working Group further. I provided a non-malicious code review. If public webapps is going to proceed with broken code, I'd say that that behavior is disruptive to the web. I do know about testing and my feedback is relevant. What I see on a larger picture here are a few companies, including yours (Apple) who are vying to get their APIs approved. The idea takes a back seat to the company. This is counterproductive and destructive to the web. It causes harm. Working for Apple doesn't make your ideas any more valid. It doesn't make you an authority to decide whether or not I am socially competent and making such statements is a personal attack on my character. If you are trying to discourage personal attacks, you are not setting much of an example. You don't seem to like to have it pointed out when you're wrong. Instead, you would rather retaliate by calling me names. I guess you would call this behavior socially competent behavior. Garrett Regards, ^^ Insincere. Maciej And this: Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is *not* Private mail. Only you would know why you mailed multiple people and called it private. I'm putting this on the list so we can see what kind of person Chaals is. It looks like you took it upon yourself to go out of your way to describe me as inappropriate, accusatory, counter-productive and attacking. You then asked me to stick to demonstrable facts. We don't really know why you did this. I pointed out the OP's mistakes, asked him some questions, and followed with my opinion of the relevance of YUI Test (Re Hallvord's Comments). Nobody should discourage code reviews. Especially not for code that is supposed to be taken seriously. Garrett -- Forwarded message -- From: Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM Subject: Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format To: Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private mail: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:56:35 +0200, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Carmelo Montanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Folks: I am getting ready to submit a number of tests and wanted to get your feedback on format. We already agreed on a template a few weeks back. This follows on that format. Just wanted to get your view before I go forward. See attached files. You obviously did not try running this in any browser. Hi Garrett, please refrain from making assumptions about what people do. Opening a mail with an accusatory or attacking tone of this nature is counter-productive, and therefore
Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format
Hi, Garrett- Please stop. If you post any more messages to the list like your last two, Mike and I will have to suspend your posting privileges, and consult with the co-chairs (Chaals and Art) when or if you should be allow to post again (such as in 2 weeks). May I suggest, in all seriousness, that you step back, take a few breaths, and reconsider how you want to treat people and to be treated. I hear your frustration, and if there's something that we can do to make this a more pleasant and productive working environment for everyone, yourself included, we will strive to do it. But we all know this isn't it. I'd ask everyone to stop posting on this thread until one of the chairs decides what to do. Thanks. Regards- -Doug Garrett Smith wrote (on 9/18/08 2:35 AM): On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: Hey Chaals, What makes you think that your pious and arrogant attitude makes you a moderator? You have no right to dictate what I can say. The fact that Chaals is a co-Chair of the Web Applications working group makes him a moderator of this mailing list, whatever you may think of his attitude. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/charter/ As co-Chair, it his responsibility to ensure the W3C Process is followed. The Individual Participation Criteria in the charter require, among other things, Social competence in one's role. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#ParticipationCriteria Your repeated rudeness, hostility, personal attacks on Working Group members and lack of constructive contribution demonstrate a significant lack of social competence. Oh really. So, Maciej, where exactly did you get your degree in internet behaviorology? Please explain this, because what you wrote sounds like a personal character attack (to me). You're responses to me have always been hostile/negative. You've *never once* replied to *any* personal mail I've sent you, even when you initiated. Yes I've pointed out your mistakes on the list but never in a nasty way. You strike me as someone who is somewhat intelligent, not used to being criticized, and (although I've never mentioned it) extremely arrogant. I usually just dismiss your attitude as unimportant and focus on whatever substance you have to say. I get the sense that you have developed a personal dislike and I think that you picking up this thread to say stuff like that proves it. I commend Chaals on his decision to help you stick to the Of course you would commend Chaals, even for something he didn't do, if it had a way to insult me. You have demonstrated that you have a personal problem with me. I am an individual. I am not representing a company, so that is a fairly safe move. Individual Participation Criteria. Should you continue to fail to do so, I hope he will take appropriate measures to keep you from disrupting the Working Group further. I provided a non-malicious code review. If public webapps is going to proceed with broken code, I'd say that that behavior is disruptive to the web. I do know about testing and my feedback is relevant. What I see on a larger picture here are a few companies, including yours (Apple) who are vying to get their APIs approved. The idea takes a back seat to the company. This is counterproductive and destructive to the web. It causes harm. Working for Apple doesn't make your ideas any more valid. It doesn't make you an authority to decide whether or not I am socially competent and making such statements is a personal attack on my character. If you are trying to discourage personal attacks, you are not setting much of an example. You don't seem to like to have it pointed out when you're wrong. Instead, you would rather retaliate by calling me names. I guess you would call this behavior socially competent behavior. Garrett Regards, ^^ Insincere. Maciej And this: Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is *not* Private mail. Only you would know why you mailed multiple people and called it private. I'm putting this on the list so we can see what kind of person Chaals is. It looks like you took it upon yourself to go out of your way to describe me as inappropriate, accusatory, counter-productive and attacking. You then asked me to stick to demonstrable facts. We don't really know why you did this. I pointed out the OP's mistakes, asked him some questions, and followed with my opinion of the relevance of YUI Test (Re Hallvord's Comments). Nobody should discourage code reviews. Especially not for code that is supposed to be taken seriously. Garrett -- Forwarded message -- From: Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM Subject: Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests
Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format
Hey Harold and Garret: Thanks so much for the feedback. I realize, I send in an incorrect version of the file. I had put a new sample on the CVS repository. The W3c_ functions are part of the already agreed format. Thanks, Carmelo
Fwd: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format
Hey Chaals, What makes you think that your pious and arrogant attitude makes you a moderator? You have no right to dictate what I can say. And this: Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is *not* Private mail. Only you would know why you mailed multiple people and called it private. I'm putting this on the list so we can see what kind of person Chaals is. It looks like you took it upon yourself to go out of your way to describe me as inappropriate, accusatory, counter-productive and attacking. You then asked me to stick to demonstrable facts. We don't really know why you did this. I pointed out the OP's mistakes, asked him some questions, and followed with my opinion of the relevance of YUI Test (Re Hallvord's Comments). Nobody should discourage code reviews. Especially not for code that is supposed to be taken seriously. Garrett -- Forwarded message -- From: Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM Subject: Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format To: Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private mail: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:56:35 +0200, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Carmelo Montanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Folks: I am getting ready to submit a number of tests and wanted to get your feedback on format. We already agreed on a template a few weeks back. This follows on that format. Just wanted to get your view before I go forward. See attached files. You obviously did not try running this in any browser. Hi Garrett, please refrain from making assumptions about what people do. Opening a mail with an accusatory or attacking tone of this nature is counter-productive, and therefore inappropriate for this working group. Please keep your comments to demonstrable facts and a more positive tone in future. thanks Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://www.opera.com
Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:12:04 +0200, Carmelo Montanez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am getting ready to submit a number of tests and wanted to get your feedback on format. We already agreed on a template a few weeks back. This follows on that format. Just wanted to get your view before I go forward. See attached files. Hi Carmelo, I don't quite see how the structure of your format is meant to evolve - the tests are not very complex but there is still too much utility code that should be in a framework inside the scripts itself, and it all relies too much on global variables and global functions in ad-hoc underscore-namespaces like w3c_ and NIST_. Perhaps you have some documentation on the agreed format? Also a bit odd that you won't get correct pass/fail output in UAs without advanced CSS support - generated content, even. That alone makes the test suite useless for comparing compliance to older browsers or your past versions. Have you considered simply using the YUI-test framework? I think it is pretty well structured and clean. I admit I have not written any serious number of tests with it but I work on analysing those that come with YUI pretty often and it always strikes me as better than other frameworks I know - stuff I maintain or have written. Format 1 includes the files: NIST_wheel_001.html NIST_wheel_002.html NIST_functions.js Format 2 includes: NIST_wheel_format2_001.html NIST_wheel_002_format2.html NIST_Functions_format2.js Thanks, Carmelo Montanez -- Hallvord R. M. Steen Core QA JavaScript tester, Opera Software http://www.opera.com/ Opera - simply the best Internet experience
Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format
Hi Folks:
I am getting ready to submit a number of tests and wanted to get your
feedback on format. We already agreed
on a template a few weeks back. This follows on that format. Just
wanted to get your view before I go forward.
See attached files.
Format 1 includes the files:
NIST_wheel_001.html
NIST_wheel_002.html
NIST_functions.js
Format 2 includes:
NIST_wheel_format2_001.html
NIST_wheel_002_format2.html
NIST_Functions_format2.js
Thanks,
Carmelo Montanez
NIST_wheel_002_format2.html
Description: Binary data
var _actualResults = actual;
var _expectedResults = expected;
function NIST_reportResult()
{
if (_actualResults == _expectedResults)
document.getElementById(result).setAttribute(class, passed);
else
document.getElementById(result).setAttribute(class, failed);
}
function NIST_wheel_001(id)
{
var evt = document.createEvent(WheelEvent);
evt.initWheelEvent(wheel, true, true, window,
0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, null, null, 0, 0, 0);
var target = document.getElementById(id);
target.dispatchEvent(evt);
_actualResults = evt.screenX;
_expectedResults = getExpectedResults_NIST_wheel_001();
}
function NIST_wheel_002(id)
{
var evt = document.createEvent(WheelEvent);
evt.initWheelEvent(wheel, true, true, window,
0, -5, 0, 0, 0, 0, null, null, 0, 0, 0);
var target = document.getElementById(id);
target.dispatchEvent(evt);
_actualResults = evt.screenX;
_expectedResults = getExpectedResults_NIST_wheel_002();
}
function getExpectedResults_NIST_wheel_001()
{
return 5;
}
function getExpectedResults_NIST_wheel_002()
{
return -5;
}var _actualResults = actual;
var _expectedResults = expected;
function NIST_reportResult()
{
if (_actualResults == _expectedResults)
document.getElementById(result).setAttribute(class, passed);
else
document.getElementById(result).setAttribute(class, failed);
}
function getExpectedResults_NIST_wheel_001()
{
return 5;
}
function getExpectedResults_NIST_wheel_002()
{
return -5;
}
NIST_wheel_001.html
Description: Binary data
NIST_wheel_001_format2.html
Description: Binary data
NIST_wheel_002.html
Description: Binary data
