16:18:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
16:18:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-html-wg-irc
16:18:14 <tobie__> tobie__ has joined #html-wg
16:18:16 <plh> Regrets: Mark Watson, John Jansen
16:18:53 <plh> Topic: Agenda bashing
16:18:53 <plh> scribe: nick
16:18:55 <plh> scribe: plh
16:19:23 <plh> Paul: we have 9-10:15, 10:30- 12, 1-3, 3:15-5
16:19:28 <decadance> decadance has joined #html-wg
16:20:21 <paul___irish> paul___irish has joined #html-wg
16:20:32 <plh> Paul: we were approached for fixed timeslot on Wednesday 2pm
16:20:36 <plh> ... from the IAB
16:20:46 <cwilso__> cwilso__ has joined #html-wg
16:21:15 <eliot> eliot has joined #html-wg
16:21:48 <hober> hober has joined #html-wg
16:22:23 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #html-wg
16:23:28 <plh> Paul: Wednesday morning is EME and MSE
16:23:37 <plh> ... from 9:00-12:00
16:23:49 <plh> ... some of them will phone in tomorrow
16:24:11 <plh> ... we'll to send a reminder for how to connect
16:24:30 <plh> ... David Darwin sent a detailed list of outstanding bugs
16:24:49 <plh> ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Apr/0051.html
16:25:09 <plh> ... we'll start with MSE, then do EME
16:25:22 <slightlyoff_> slightlyoff_ has joined #html-wg
16:26:15 <plh> ... [Paul going through the list]
16:26:36 <gavin> gavin has joined #html-wg
16:26:42 <plh> ... http://w3c.github.io/html/test-results/less-than-2.html
16:27:00 <plh> ... for date/time, we'll wait for Tantek
16:27:03 <arronei> arronei has joined #html-wg
16:27:04 <jaymunro> jaymunro has joined #html-wg
16:27:09 <plh> Robin: would be good to have Travis for those
16:27:16 <plh> Paul: Travis is away...
16:28:05 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
16:28:06 <plh> Adrian: I've got some note from him, would need input from i18n folks
16:28:26 <plh> Paul: [continuing through the list]
16:29:23 <denis_> denis_ has joined #html-wg
16:30:06 <plh> Paul: [trying to collect data on agenda items length]
16:30:14 <plh> Robin: 15 minutes for DOM4 update
16:30:26 <plh> Mark: 15 minutes for Canvas2D CR
16:30:49 <plh> Paul: anything to do on canvas2d level 2?
16:31:32 <plh> Jay: nothing to discuss on level 2 today
16:33:38 <plh> Paul: one hour + timeslot for testing, norm references, featurs at risk
16:33:46 <plh> Paul: datetime depends on Tantek
16:33:58 <plh> ... also for divergence item
16:34:22 <plh> ... I'll give that a 30 minutes slot
16:34:49 <plh> ... Other specs: (extensions and LCs) 30 minutes
16:35:11 <plh> ... (changing to 90 minutes for HTML 5.0)
16:35:19 <plh> ... HTML 5.1 (60 minutes)
16:35:43 <plh> ... let's start with DOM4 and Canvas2D
16:35:52 <BobLund> BobLund has joined #html-wg
16:36:05 <plh> ... {Paul edits the agenda]
16:36:43 <Lachy> Lachy has joined #html-wg
16:36:55 <plh> ... HTML 5.0 from 10:30 to 12:00 today
16:37:37 <plh> ... divergence and WG culture and participation at 13:00-14:00
16:38:04 <plh> ... 14:00-15:00 for other specs (extensions and LC)
16:38:47 <plh> ... 15:15 to 16:15 for HTML 5.1
16:38:56 <plh> ... 16:15 to 17:00 is overflow
16:40:56 <plh> ... [folks should reload the agenda page]
16:41:08 <plh> ... tomorrow at 1pm for datetime item
16:41:49 <plh> ... tomorrow might be overflow for HTML 5.0 discussion
16:41:56 <plh> ... at 3pm
16:42:46 <plh> Topic: Canvas 2D Level 1
16:42:58 <plh> Paul: lots of the heavy lifting has been done already, but let's get an update
16:43:41 <plh> ... we have http://tinyurl.com/pjbhuj3
16:43:50 <plh> ... http://tinyurl.com/o6xb946
16:43:57 <plh> ... zero bugs outstanding
16:44:38 <paulc> paulc has joined #html-wg
16:44:46 <paulc> waves
16:45:16 <plh> Mark: back in september, we looked at the CR document
16:45:20 <plh> ... some things were missing
16:45:25 <plh> ... focus ring and hit region
16:45:31 <jernoble> jernoble has joined #html-wg
16:45:39 <plh> ... focus is critical for keyboard user
16:45:48 <plh> ... and hit region for a11y api
16:45:54 <plh> ... so we formed a subgroup
16:46:02 <plh> ... we made progress on a weekly basis
16:46:07 <plh> ... we tried to achieve both
16:46:19 <plh> ... drawFocusIfNeeded
16:46:38 <plh> ... once we finished that, Mozilla attempted to implement and didn't like the approach
16:46:45 <plh> ... so we worked ona hit region based solution
16:46:54 <plh> ... was a rather complicated section of the spec
16:47:08 <plh> ... Mozilla demonstrated a quick prototype
16:47:17 <plh> ... we reduced hit regions to something easy to implement
16:47:26 <plh> ... while maintaining forward compatibility
16:47:37 <plh> ... and we're in a good sape
16:47:42 <plh> s/sape/shape/
16:47:48 <paulc> Open Canvas2D CR Bugs - CR keyword - zero bugs http://tinyurl.com/pjbhuj3
16:47:53 <plh> ... a few clarifications to make, will go over them with Jay today
16:48:03 <krisk> krisk has joined #HTML-wg
16:48:04 <plh> ... so should be able to move to LC next week
16:48:22 <plh> Paul: plan is to take it back to LC
16:48:25 <plh> ... 4 weeks
16:48:37 <plh> ... disclosure is a long pole
16:49:07 <plh> ... won't be able to move to PR within 60 days
16:49:17 <plh> ... we don't expect substantive comments on the LC
16:49:26 <plh> ... current CR had several at risk features
16:49:33 <plh> ... we got rid of them through a bug
16:49:58 <plh> ... so adding the hit region material. they have at most one implementation currently. so hit region itself will be at risk.
16:50:16 <plh> ... otherwise we would be blocked and have to go to LC again to remove it
16:50:28 <plh> ... it's a standalone section
16:50:58 <plh> ... Jay and  Mark will give  a stable draft this week
16:51:05 <plh> ... then we'll do a CfC for LC
16:51:28 <plh> ... targeting publication on or before April 22
16:52:29 <krisk> * test
16:52:37 <plh> ... this means LC ends May 20 or earlier
16:53:08 <plh> ... since we won't skip CR, we won't say anything in the status
16:53:36 <plh> ... on CR length, let's hold for that on the HTML 5 discussion
16:54:11 <JohnJansen> JohnJansen has joined #html-wg
16:55:04 <krisk> * hint johnjan if you want to talk about webdriver and web platform tests at a certain time
16:55:44 <plh> Paul: most important item is the second implementation for hit region
16:55:53 <plh> ... test results
16:56:03 <plh> ... at a previous HTML Group meeting
16:56:26 <plh> ... http://www.w3.org/html/test/results/2dcontext/
16:56:27 <JohnJansen> I'm on IRC and would like to call in when the test status discussion starts
16:56:52 <plh> ... is there a plan to get these test results updated?
16:56:55 <plh> Robin: I can do that
16:57:16 <plh> ACTION: Robin to provide updated results for Canvas 2D Level 1
16:58:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Provide updated results for canvas 2d level 1 [on Robin Berjon - due 2014-04-15].
16:58:38 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/2dcontext/drawing-paths-to-the-canvas
17:02:55 <plh> Paul: on canvas results, the sense was that we had enough data, modulo hit regions
17:03:10 <plh> ... so Robin will just udpate the results
17:03:35 <plh> ... so only thing on critical path is the second implementation of hit region
17:03:41 <plh> Glenn: and if we don't get it?
17:04:16 <plh> Paul: several possibility: extension spec, level 2 only, (I don't think we want to consider dropping it)
17:04:27 <plh> ... then criteria will be trade-off between waiting or having the REC
17:04:56 <plh> ... we'll mark hit regions at risk in the LC and the CR
17:05:23 <plh> Topic: DOM4 LC results
17:05:47 <plh> ... https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?component=DOM4&list_id=34640&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced
17:05:56 <plh> ... bugs are resolved
17:06:16 <plh> Robin: initially, I subsetted the DOM WHATWG spec to remove Promises
17:06:35 <plh> ... but then it got removed from DOM WHATWG as well, so we're back in sync
17:06:46 <plh> q+
17:07:49 <plh> [looking at http://w3c.github.io/dom/]
17:08:08 <plh> Robin: we have red in the status section
17:08:32 <plh> w3c.github.io/dom/test-results/less-than-2.html#test-file-44
17:08:39 <plh> ... we have warnings in the spec
17:09:10 <plh> ... I would expect to survive CR and be in the Recommendation
17:10:50 <plh> plh: DOMError will go away. What does it mean?
17:11:09 <plh> Tantek: +1
17:11:19 <plh> Robin: we can rephrasing it
17:11:41 <plh> ACTION: Robin to rephrase the warnings in DOM4
17:11:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Rephrase the warnings in dom4 [on Robin Berjon - due 2014-04-15].
17:12:14 <plh> Tantek: "will go away" is confusing indeed for implementers
17:13:05 <plh> http://w3c.github.io/dom/#collections:-elements
17:14:24 <plh> ACTION: Robin to look at the WebIDL http://w3c.github.io/dom/#collections:-elements
17:14:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Look at the webidl http://w3c.github.io/dom/#collections:-elements [on Robin Berjon - due 2014-04-15].
17:14:46 <plh> Paul: DOM test suite results
17:15:08 <plh> http://w3c.github.io/dom/test-results/less-than-2.html
17:15:19 <plh> Robin: the situation improved a lot since I sent my messages
17:15:38 <plh> ... 181/47132 (0.38%)
17:15:51 <plh> ... this is a good test suite but of course not perfect
17:15:58 <plh> ... some of the them are disputable
17:16:06 <plh> ... like historical tests
17:16:13 <plh> ... the spec doesn't require folks to remove features
17:16:24 <plh> ... a bunch of interfaces that fail
17:16:28 <plh> ... some WebIDL bugs
17:16:38 <plh> ... events related tests
17:16:44 <plh> ... tests results are good enough
17:17:14 <rubys> s/some WebIDL bugs/some alleged WebIDL bugs/
17:18:21 <plh> http://w3c.github.io/dom/#interface-nodelist
17:18:46 <plh> Paul: is it an at risk feature?
17:18:54 <plh> Robin: yes, that's a candidate
17:18:58 <plh> Paul: any other?
17:19:42 <plh> Plh: both NodeList and Elements don't support Array :(
17:19:51 <plh> Robin: 5.2.6 might be dropped
17:21:44 <plh> [discussion on whether we can support ArrayClass]
17:22:08 <plh> [implementers are shaking their heads on making progress on this]
17:22:41 <plh> Paul: so, we'll need the list of at risk features, 5.2.6 and ArrayClass on 5.2.7
17:23:06 <plh> ... we'll need the action items looked at
17:23:25 <plh> ... what length for CR?
17:23:59 <plh> Plh: 4 weeks?
17:24:10 <plh> Paul: let's pick 4 weeks at the minimum
17:24:17 <plh> ... we'll get an updated draft from Robin
17:24:25 <plh> ... with cleanup text and at risk features
17:24:50 <plh> ACTION: Robin to provide an updated draft for DOM4
17:24:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-241 - Provide an updated draft for dom4 [on Robin Berjon - due 2014-04-15].
17:25:56 <plh> Ted: Sylvia has limited ability to attend, can we talk about DataCue at 1pm?
17:26:41 <plh> [Paul updates agenda to include DataCue at 1pm today]
17:27:04 <plh> [break for 10 minutes]
17:30:00 <JohnJansen> trying to call in but 4865 is 'not a valid code'
17:30:12 <paulc> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:30:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-html-wg-minutes.html paulc
17:31:17 <gitbot> gitbot has joined #html-wg
17:31:17 <gitbot> [13html] 15darobin pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/0f2107d4e61c82b0b324226137306d6c9f684787
17:31:17 <gitbot> 13html/06gh-pages 140f2107d 15Robin Berjon: add canvas results
17:31:17 <gitbot> gitbot has left #html-wg
17:32:48 <wonsuk_> wonsuk_ has joined #html-wg
17:35:55 <tH> tH has joined #html-wg
17:37:50 <gitbot> gitbot has joined #html-wg
17:37:50 <gitbot> [13html] 15erikadoyle pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/dd718c650eb596d5a29e9949ccff057fb39f1820
17:37:50 <gitbot> 13html/06gh-pages 14dd718c6 15Erika Doyle Navara: IE11 results for canvas and html suites
17:37:50 <gitbot> gitbot has left #html-wg
17:39:59 <jgraham> gitbot says WG calls break: work starts
17:41:46 <gitbot> gitbot has joined #html-wg
17:41:46 <gitbot> [13html] 15darobin pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/9eb337b756007a6c224075265a233cccfa406775
17:41:46 <gitbot> 13html/06gh-pages 149eb337b 15Robin Berjon: add WebKit results
17:41:46 <gitbot> gitbot has left #html-wg
17:49:15 <krisk> * test...
17:52:23 <plh> zakim, room for 5?
17:52:24 <Zakim> ok, plh; conference Team_(html-wg)17:52Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 60 minutes until 1852Z
17:52:41 <cyns> cyns has joined #html-wg
17:52:47 <cyns> scribe: cyns
17:53:14 <cyns> PC: moved datacue to 1:00 to accomodate Silva
17:53:39 <cyns> PC: moved datetime to a 30 minute slot at the end of today, and added 30 minutes tomorrow for dom 4 test results.
17:53:40 <Zakim> Team_(html-wg)17:52Z has now started
17:53:47 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
17:53:56 <JohnJansen> 26632 worked, but I'm alone.
17:54:30 <JohnJansen> Zakim, Microsoft has JohnJansen
17:54:30 <Zakim> +JohnJansen; got it
17:54:39 <cyns> Philipe is crawling around fixing the phone :)
17:54:44 <JohnJansen> video?
17:54:52 <darobin> the new DOM4 results http://w3c.github.io/dom/test-results/less-than-2.html
17:54:58 <Zakim> +[Paypal]
17:56:00 <MarkS> present+ MarkS
17:56:09 <cyns> TOPIC: HTML 5.0 status and time table, testing results
17:56:36 <darobin> http://w3c.github.io/html/test-results/less-than-2.html
17:57:03 <cyns> Robin: link to results report on tests with <2 passes
17:57:41 <cyns> PC: document with all results is very large
17:58:07 <tantek> tantek has joined #html-wg
17:58:19 <gitbot> gitbot has joined #html-wg
17:58:19 <gitbot> [13html] 15darobin pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/de6c91af615e17e2ef5ea98767e3785ea7d04419
17:58:19 <gitbot> 13html/06gh-pages 14de6c91a 15Robin Berjon: updated results
17:58:19 <gitbot> gitbot has left #html-wg
17:58:27 <tantek> greetings from the IRC web interface
17:59:15 <cyns> robin: 9% failure rate
18:00:15 <cyns> PC: why did it change from 4% to 9%
18:00:28 <cyns> robin: results for IE were actually results for firefox
18:01:05 <glenn> glenn has joined #html-wg
18:01:18 <cyns> testing chrome 36, ff30, ie11, presto engine from opera because it predates the blink fork
18:01:55 <cyns> pc: couldn't use the current opera browser because it uses blink and isn't an independent implementation
18:02:02 <cyns> robin: also webki
18:02:10 <cyns> s/webki webkit
18:02:14 <paulc> Test files with failures: 480; Subtests with fewer than 2 passes: 13712; Failure level: 13712/142441 (9.63%)
18:02:23 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
18:02:31 <cyns> PC: what does this tell us about our status?
18:06:10 <plh> 7.86% of the failures are due to WebIDL failures
18:07:44 <cyns_> cyns_ has joined #html-wg
18:07:50 <cyns_> scribe: cyns_
18:08:26 <cyns_> PC: what is the likelyhood that an end user would ever trip across this corner case
18:08:39 <cyns_> chris: a lot of these are in reflection
18:09:09 <cyns_> robin: for example, set every value in the idl to infinity, and see if the error handling is right.  If you fail that, you will fail thougsands of tests
18:09:12 <JohnJansen> s/chris/kris
18:09:36 <cyns_> mc: if these are testing webidl more than html, maybe we should remove it from this test suite
18:10:07 <Lachy> Lachy has joined #html-wg
18:10:08 <cyns_> pc: specs sometimes mean implemenation defined or implementation dependent
18:10:27 <cyns_> s/ mc ms
18:10:52 <cyns_> pc: if we did that, then that might be grounds for taking the tests out.
18:11:11 <cyns_> sr: can we do that?
18:11:52 <joesteele> joesteele has joined #html-wg
18:12:11 <cyns_> plh: webidl has 2 sections, one on syntax and one on how to bind in javascript
18:12:43 <plh> http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/#dependencies
18:12:51 <cyns_> plh: we had a problem like that for webstorage, we used a sentence in the seciton on dependencies
18:13:03 <plh> The IDL blocks in this specification are conforming IDL fragments as defined by the WebIDL specification. [WEBIDL]
18:13:35 <cyns_> plh: effectively in html5 we are using webidl syntax, but we're not doing well on binding those semantics
18:14:23 <cyns_> pc: i don't think the scenarios we were talking about have to do with javascript bindings.  it's about failures in boundary test cases and that they are multiplicitive
18:14:42 <cyns_> pc: that doesn't have to do with the bindings, but about the values being past in the tests
18:15:22 <cyns_> plh: the windows bindings to javacript, for example, will never pass because they are 20 years old and yet are core to teh web
18:15:58 <cyns_> pc: if we take those 9 or 10 rows of test results out, then we are down 1.77% failure rate.  What does that tell us?
18:16:04 <cyns_> robin: we're pretty close to home
18:16:24 <cyns_> pc: what do we tell the director about the number and bredth and number of tests?
18:17:17 <cyns_> robin: we have set a record for the number tests for a w3c spec.  granted 2% of 150,000 tests is a lot of failures.  However, many of these are corner cases or at-risk items that haven't been removed from teh test cases.
18:17:38 <cyns_> robin: list of at risk features is from when we entered cr, and needs update
18:18:25 <cyns_> robin: media element rows 62-144 has a lot of things that aren't implemented well.
18:18:38 <cyns_> PC: media is kind of important...
18:19:05 <cyns_> robin: yes,  this needs more investigation.  some of these are going to be problems with tests, but others are likely real faiures.
18:19:29 <cyns_> PC: plan 2014 has another last call, but not another CR.
18:19:39 <cyns_> plh: or marked at risk in last call.
18:19:48 <cyns_> PC: at risk and last call don't match for me
18:20:07 <cyns_> robin: I think it works process-wise
18:20:11 <cyns_> plh: +1
18:20:45 <cyns_> pc: need to identify all the sets of tests that are failing
18:20:55 <krisk> http://w3c-test.org/html/infrastructure/urls/resolving-urls/query-encoding is another item to note for possible at risk feature
18:21:06 <cyns_> robin: need to make sure that tests that are reporting false are correct
18:21:27 <cyns_> pc: can you point us to the html5 spec subsections that are the culprits?
18:21:57 <cyns_> robin: text tracks
18:22:03 <cyns_> ms: oncuechange
18:22:12 <cyns_> ms: that is part of text track
18:22:26 <jgraham> That query-encoding test is buggy
18:22:45 <jgraham> I pushed a PR today, although I'm not sure it fixes the whole problem
18:23:09 <plh> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/embedded-content-0.html#timed-text-tracks
18:23:12 <cyns_> glen: text track cue constructor should not be supported... this is a questionable test, testing whether something from an earlier draft has been deprecated.  row 62
18:24:04 <cyns_> glen: this test is producing a lot of failures, but I don't know if it's essential to test.  the old version could be there without impacting interoperability of new features
18:24:30 <cyns_> PC: we need  a definitive list of features that we may need to cut.  let's put that on the agenda for tomorrow.
18:24:41 <cyns_> robin: i will try to compile that list
18:25:12 <paulc> CR exit criteria: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tests-cr-exit/
18:25:44 <cyns_> ACTION: darobin to compile list of sections of html5 spec that are failing tests
18:25:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-242 - Compile list of sections of html5 spec that are failing tests [on Robin Berjon - due 2014-04-15].
18:26:11 <cyns_> robin: this document reflects an up to date view of the quality of the test suite
18:26:43 <cyns_> pc: previous data tells us how we're doing on the tests we have, this one tell us where we need more tests
18:26:59 <cyns_> plh: this is from april 2013
18:27:22 <cyns_> pc: these show areas where we needed more coverage.  where do we stand on this
18:27:53 <cyns_> plh: a year ago we thought we needed more testing, for example for 2.4.5.  The checks say that we now thing we have enough tests.
18:28:43 <cyns_> robin: no, the green ones are where the group said we didn't need tests.  green + check means we don't need tests but we have them.  purple with check means we need and have tests.
18:29:08 <cyns_> pc: so I need to look for ones without checkmarks.
18:30:30 <cyns_> 3.1.4 loading xml documents is priority, no check, needs tests and doesn't have them.
18:30:58 <cyns_> robin: in most of these cases, we have pull requests that need reviewing
18:31:22 <cyns_> pc: that will give us tests, but not results or implemenations
18:31:30 <cyns_> plh: section 5 is not well tests at all
18:31:44 <MarkS> q+ to ask what differentiates sections with a priority flag and without
18:32:01 <cyns_> robin: for most of these, I think we will be good soon.  loading xml is a feature we're likely to drop.  many others have open pull requests.  section 5 is our weekness
18:32:41 <cyns_> glen: a lot of these are new features to html5
18:32:52 <cyns_> robin: not necesarily
18:33:04 <plh> #769, #773, #660, #634, #521, #612
18:33:15 <cyns_> robin: obviously anything new needs to be tested, but a lot of the purple lines are things where we knew there were historical issues
18:33:44 <cyns_> robin: section 5 is about the window object.  the rules were never written down before, and everyone does it differently.
18:33:56 <cyns_> plh: pasted in pull request numbers that are waiting.
18:34:06 <glenn> s/glen/glenn/g
18:34:24 <cyns_> pc: 38 rows that have the word 'priority' in them
18:34:28 <cyns_> robin: most in section 5
18:34:31 <krisk> 22 of the 38 are in section 5
18:34:46 <plh> #463
18:34:58 <cyns_> pc: these 38 rows, we need tests, we need results, and then we need to evaluate the results to see if we have implementations
18:35:10 <cyns_> pc: so, what are we going to about these? are we going to do anything?
18:35:38 <cyns_> robin: a number of section 5 items have tests that need reviewing
18:35:57 <plh> 660, 634, 521, 612
18:36:04 <plh> section 5.1, 5.2
18:36:10 <plh> section 5.7
18:36:43 <darobin> sections 5.1.6, 5.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.6.4, 5.6.6, 5.6.11 have tests that need reviewing
18:36:44 <cyns_> pc: do these pull requests decrease the number from 38?
18:36:50 <cyns_> plh: yes, but not to 0.
18:37:06 <cyns_> plh: decrease by not more than 30%
18:37:29 <cyns_> pc: this seems like a high priority item
18:38:00 <cyns_> robin: section 5 is our ship problem, other things we have a clear plan
18:38:11 <cyns_> glenn: section 8?
18:38:20 <cyns_> robin: that's parsing, and it's well tested
18:42:05 <paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24812 Features at risk bug
18:42:56 <paulc> See Robin's response in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24812
18:43:13 <paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24812#c11
18:43:14 <krisk> krisk has joined #html-wg
18:43:43 <rubys> > * Application Cache  This is interoperably implemented and should not be removed.
18:44:16 <rubys> > * <dialog>  There is movement on implementation, but it's not clear that it'll make the cut
18:44:22 <tantek> Deprecate appcache maybe?
18:44:26 <tantek> or is it already?
18:45:42 <krisk> * Test
18:45:57 <tantek> I see krisk * Test
18:46:04 <cyns> cyns has joined #html-wg
18:46:11 <cyns> scribe: cyns
18:46:28 <cyns> plh: do we have any successful tests with dialog?
18:46:48 <cyns> robin: show modal, also fail
18:47:17 <cyns> plh: that will tell us how far we are.  do we have even 1 implmentation
18:47:58 <cyns> pc: when are you going to go into last call?  how long will we wait?  we want to go into last call in june
18:48:01 <MikeSmith> At Risk with Extreme Prejudice
18:48:32 <edoyle> edoyle has joined #html-wg
18:50:11 <cyns> pc: want to come out of this meeting with: no bugs, no issues (currently there?), minimum problems with normative references, ideally no at risk features.  plan 2014 says rec in 4th quarter.  tests, results and implemenations must happen over the summer.  If we don't have that, then we are dead, or have to take out feature.
18:50:28 <cyns> PC: with that in mind, we've said: let's remove app cache.
18:50:34 <cyns> pc: what do we do with dialog?
18:50:53 <cyns> robin: 2 options.  take it out now, or at the last minute
18:51:05 <cyns> plh: only 2 tests
18:51:12 <cyns> robin: other tests in other places
18:51:20 <krisk> http://w3c.github.io/html/test-results/less-than-2.html#test-file-285 dialog info
18:51:48 <cyns> pc: let's look at all the tests first. table dialog
18:51:52 <rubys> > * <details> and <summary>  Irrespective of the source of the implementations, they still fail some pretty basic tests like html/semantics/interfaces.html.
18:52:09 <cyns> pc: details and summary.
18:52:21 <tantek> btw re: dialog and Gecko - you can track "status" here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=840640
18:52:42 <cyns> ms: there was  alate bug about interactive content inside summary element, which makes a problem about where the click is.
18:53:52 <tantek> details & summary are not implemented in Gecko. status here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591737
18:54:42 <rubys> > * <input type=color>  Supported in both Chrome and pre-Blink Opera.
18:54:55 <cyns> cyns: there is another issue around details/summary, which is that it was one replacement for the @summary attribute on table.
18:55:13 <cyns> pc: input type color
18:55:34 <plh> 4.10.5.1.14 Color state (type=color)
18:56:07 <plh> pull request #773
18:56:40 <tantek> input type=color appears to be partially implemented in Gecko, status of what's implemented vs. what's left to be implemented can be found here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=547004
18:57:10 <cyns> pc: what are we going to do with the at risk items that need testing and don't have tests?
18:57:32 <cyns> plh: we do have a pull request.
18:57:54 <cyns> kris: color will either work or not work. it won't be complicated like app cache
19:00:56 <wilhelm> wilhelm has joined #html-wg
19:05:11 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #html-wg
19:07:49 <SteveF> re: summary details implementation - no implementations as defined in spec
19:08:59 <SteveF_> SteveF_ has joined #html-wg
19:53:48 <zqzhang> zqzhang has joined #html-wg
20:00:40 <paulc> waves
20:02:02 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #html-wg
20:02:30 <krisk> krisk has joined #html-wg
20:02:49 <paulc> Topic: Datacue discussion
20:03:08 <krisk> scribe: krisk
20:04:48 <aizu> aizu has joined #html-wg
20:04:53 <plh> s/Datacue/DataCue/
20:04:58 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
20:05:17 <edoyle> edoyle has joined #html-wg
20:05:31 <paulc> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:05:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], [Paypal]
20:05:32 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has JohnJansen
20:05:47 <paulc> We are waiting for Sylvia.
20:06:04 <krisk> hober: Here is a summary of the proposal
20:06:27 <krisk> ...it's in the spec section
20:06:59 <krisk> .....4.7.10.12.6 Test Tracks exposing meta data
20:07:00 <hober> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#datacue
20:07:04 <plh> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/embedded-content-0.html#text-tracks-exposing-in-band-metadata
20:07:28 <paulc> 4.7.10.12.6 Text tracks exposing in-band metadata
20:07:43 <krisk> hober: The idea is that sites streaming media an stream custom metadata
20:07:45 <jdsmith> jdsmith has joined #html-wg
20:08:08 <krisk> hober: It can be text or custom for the page author
20:08:35 <krisk> hober: Normally metadata is decoded by the browser(s)
20:08:59 <krisk> hober; I3 for example has data about the show, or the teams playing and the score
20:09:52 <krisk> Hober: We like to be a bit more like xhr where we can expose a document, or blob
20:10:05 <MarkVickers> MarkVickers has joined #html-wg
20:10:31 <krisk> hober: we don't want to have then take time to decode the data buffer
20:10:34 <stommepoes> stommepoes has left #html-wg
20:11:41 <krisk> glenn: The generic use and specific should be seperate use cases
20:12:17 <krisk> glenn: Having other metadata to help the user agent decode would be good
20:12:37 <krisk> hober: The first case seems fine, I'm only talking about the latter
20:13:48 <krisk> mjs: Does the user agent have a way to determine the data stream?
20:13:53 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #html-wg
20:14:20 <krisk> krisk: An attribute exists that has this information
20:17:06 <krisk> hober: basically just change from arraybuffer to any
20:17:26 <krisk> glenn: what is raw data?  framing and payload?
20:18:42 <krisk> glenn: what if we wanted to expose more than one type?
20:19:05 <xiaoqian> xiaoqian has joined #html-wg
20:20:07 <krisk> glenn: I though .text was kept for backward compat
20:20:40 <krisk> The current is useful, if it's plain text you need to extract from arraybuffer
20:21:19 <krisk> hober: data sticks around and replace text?
20:22:45 <krisk> paulc: which version 5.0 or 5.1?
20:23:09 <krisk> hober: it's in 5.0 4.7.10.12.6
20:23:32 <krisk> glenn: It's worth mentioning that the WHATWG doesn't have this at all
20:24:04 <krisk> hober: The next topic is part of talking about this..
20:24:16 <krisk> hober: Ian thinks this is useless
20:24:35 <krisk> glenn: Unless the useragent knows what it is and can decode this data
20:24:47 <krisk> plh: How do you get a DataCue in HTML5 today
20:25:35 <krisk> glenn: You need to know that this part of text track queues
20:26:00 <krisk> glenn: Using typeOf or the track type itself
20:26:21 <krisk> mjs: instanceOf will work
20:26:54 <krisk> mjs: It's like getElementById - you need to check or know what type of element that is returned
20:27:33 <krisk> hober: I wanted to raise the issue and do a sanity check on this issue
20:27:41 <krisk> paulc: what is the elevator pitch?
20:27:56 <krisk> hober: Add a new filed which exposed the encode type
20:28:09 <krisk> s/filed/field/
20:28:23 <krisk> hober: glenn seems ok with replacing .text
20:28:59 <krisk> hober: we could add some non-normative examples in the spec
20:29:21 <krisk> hober: I'm open with the name of this
20:30:11 <krisk> paulc: This item (text0 is basically at risk no tests, no implementation
20:30:25 <krisk> s/(text0/text/
20:30:57 <hober> WebKit bug: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123907
20:31:08 <krisk> paulc: are we done?
20:31:27 <krisk> hober: I can have an action item to add a bug for this issue
20:32:26 <krisk> paulc: Next item on Agenda is HTML WG culture and participation and divergence from WHATWG specs
20:32:28 <krisk> TOPIC: HTML WG culture and participation and divergence from WHATWG specs
20:32:48 <krisk> paulc: first item is from tantek
20:33:10 <krisk> second is robins spec diffs
20:33:13 <edoyle_> edoyle_ has joined #html-wg
20:33:28 <krisk> third is the work mode document
20:33:43 <krisk> paulc: Let's start with work mode document
20:34:08 <krisk> rubys: It's been a while since we updated the decision policy
20:34:19 <krisk> ..a number sections are old, not used
20:34:33 <krisk> ..whatwg has a doc is this a better base for changes?
20:34:39 <paulc> Workmode document: https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/WorkMode
20:34:55 <krisk> rubys: I sent this proposal to the list and had only one positive commit
20:35:50 <paulc> 'Proposal need to suggest one or more editors, be able to identify independent support, be within the scope of the working group, and not attract strong objections"
20:36:02 <krisk> glenn: I'd propose removing the second sentance (see above)
20:36:47 <MikeSmith> RRSAgent, make minutes
20:36:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith
20:37:03 <MikeSmith> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:37:06 <krisk> It's not removing the second sentance...
20:37:27 <krisk> paulc: Sam and I did a personal rude Q and A
20:37:30 <glenn> s/the second sentence/the last phrase "and not attract strong objections"/
20:37:44 <krisk> paulc: Like why did we have this in the first place
20:37:50 <silvia> silvia has joined #html-wg
20:38:24 <krisk> paulc: We'd like to not have this but had to add this in the past to make progress on working group decision
20:38:35 <jaymunro>  Possible wording:  Proposal need to suggest one or more editors, be able to identify independent support, and be within the scope of the working group.
20:39:33 <krisk> paulc: We'd like to have a lighter weight process, especially in pre-last call and last call
20:40:45 <krisk> paulc: We would like to have the editors do this work and not have this heavy process in place to make progress
20:41:31 <krisk> paulc: If we don't have any objections the chairs are going to impl this change
20:42:47 <krisk> glenn: So basically we are going to a lighter weight process and if needed we can handle one off issues
20:43:02 <krisk> rubys: Yes - with the current editiors we have had zero issues
20:43:36 <krisk> paulc: the extension specs seem to have helped as well since it has taken pressure off and exists to get changes made to the spec for alternate solutions
20:44:05 <krisk> glenn: quesiton about extension specs...
20:44:23 <mjs> q+
20:44:28 <krisk> ....would we move items at risk into an extension spec?
20:44:35 <plh> q-
20:45:02 <krisk> rubys: ruby got moved into 5.0 from an extension spec
20:45:27 <krisk> glenn: my ask is the opposite - remove feature and move to an extension spec
20:45:52 <krisk> paulc: Yes if it can be cleanly removed  - canvas 2d hit testing is an example
20:46:02 <paulc> ack marks
20:46:02 <Zakim> MarkS, you wanted to ask what differentiates sections with a priority flag and without
20:46:09 <paulc> ack mjs
20:46:45 <krisk> ...One having a light process is much better
20:46:46 <gitbot> gitbot has joined #html-wg
20:46:46 <gitbot> [13html] 15darobin pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/f4eda02f5c9456aa2045b21353889bd9bef3a385
20:46:46 <gitbot> 13html/06gh-pages 14f4eda02 15Robin Berjon: updated safari results
20:46:46 <gitbot> gitbot has left #html-wg
20:47:30 <krisk_> krisk_ has joined #html-wg
20:47:30 <tantek> q+
20:47:49 <krisk_> Though for the 1% having a process in place is helpful
20:48:37 <krisk_> rubys: I understand this point - other WG have this 1% issue, but so far this has not been the case
20:50:37 <rubys> q+
20:50:56 <hober> q+
20:51:24 <plh> ack tantek
20:51:51 <paulc_> paulc_ has joined #html-wg
20:51:59 <MikeSmith> for the sake of being accurate here, the "original problem" really hasn't been solved. The problem that Hixie mentioned here just earlier here remains. Unless we somehow don't consider that a problem.
20:53:51 <krisk__> krisk__ has joined #html-wg
20:54:08 <krisk__> tantek: Seem that one needs to just escalate to the chairs like in other working groups
20:54:20 <krisk__> rubys: Or higher if needed
20:56:00 <krisk__> paulc: Art asked the chairs why we were doing CFC for heartbeat drafts for example
20:56:03 <BobLund> BobLund has joined #html-wg
20:56:34 <krisk__> robin: moving this into the wiki woudl be good and keeping the work mode short is very helpful for new commers
20:57:23 <krisk__> tantek: New person comment is realy helpful since it will help people feel more welcome working/joining the group
20:57:54 <krisk__> tantek: The previous policy had the effect of turning people away from the HTML WG
20:58:15 <krisk__> tantek: This seems to undo some of this damage and better by moving to a wiki
20:58:25 <MikeSmith> RRSAgent, make minutes
20:58:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-html-wg-minutes.html MikeSmith
20:58:26 <krisk__> paulc: That was one of our objections
20:59:20 <krisk__> paulc: We started to look at this after TPAC from feedback and now have this change in place for approval
21:00:06 <krisk__> tantek: If the group decides to copy move specs from whatwg we should try to minimize divergence
21:00:20 <krisk__> tantek: Keeping track of just the diffs is not enough
21:00:43 <Hixie> or, you know, the wg could STOP COPYING OUR WORK in the first place
21:02:07 <krisk__> paulc: The charter calls out that we can take work from other sources
21:05:39 <MikeSmith> q+ to point out that the decision about whether to copy specs from the WHATWG at all is ultimately an HTML WG decision, not some kind of unchangeable external requirement
21:08:08 <paulc_> ack rubys
21:08:20 <tantek> q+ re: one way convergence
21:08:21 <krisk__> rubys: Glenn made a suggestion - he should update the wiki
21:08:38 <paulc_> ack hober
21:09:09 <krisk__> hober: We were talking about how the previous work mode came about from the failure mode we had at that time
21:09:24 <SteveF> SteveF has joined #html-wg
21:09:45 <krisk__> hober: The opposite case is that editor has captured the consensus of the group, but one still objects
21:10:20 <krisk__> hober: The new document, talks about potentially changing the editor
21:10:29 <darobin> q+ to bring up deforking
21:10:40 <krisk__> hober: We should maybe protect the group from a DoS
21:11:13 <krisk__> paulc: It's possible to do this and needs to be done with extreem care
21:11:40 <krisk__> paulc: so we do have a way to protect the group from a DoS (both sides of the problem)
21:12:27 <krisk__> paulc: In the Ally TF we have had chairs attend this meeting to make sure all parties are being heard
21:13:18 <rubys> q+ to ask tantek if https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=HTML%2Fwg%2FWorkMode&diff=72827&oldid=72766 addresses his concern
21:13:46 <paulc_> ack Mike
21:13:46 <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to point out that the decision about whether to copy specs from the WHATWG at all is ultimately an HTML WG decision, not some kind of unchangeable external
21:13:49 <Zakim> ... requirement
21:13:49 <krisk__> tantek: Having a personal touch and not process is ideal
21:14:24 <Hixie> maybe that diff should instead just say "Editors of documents that have an independent existence outside of the working group SHOULD NOT exist"
21:14:24 <rubys> q-
21:15:10 <krisk__> mikesmith: I wanted to make the point that we have been talking around the issue..
21:15:27 <krisk__> ..it's possible that we have an upstream spec under a diff license
21:15:38 <krisk__> ..one that says you can republish, modify
21:15:58 <krisk__> ..then we would not have this luxury
21:16:30 <paulc_> q+
21:16:30 <krisk__> ..so wanted to mention this that the circumstance we are in are not written in stone
21:16:44 <paulc_> ack tantek
21:16:44 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss one way convergence
21:16:59 <krisk__> tantek: rubys: made a point that I wanted to follow up on.
21:17:26 <krisk__> ..tantek we are stuck with the w3c license to possible change
21:17:41 <krisk__> ..the ab is working on this and is being worked on
21:18:04 <krisk__> ..it's also published on the AB wiki as well
21:18:35 <paulc_> ack darobin
21:18:35 <Zakim> darobin, you wanted to bring up deforking
21:18:58 <krisk__> robin: we are moving to a new work mode and trying to faciliate document convergence
21:19:13 <krisk__> ..editors talked (minus travis - he is on vacation)
21:19:36 <krisk__> ..we wanted to re-visit some possible forks
21:19:57 <krisk__> ..in case when a single person was the source and is no longer participating
21:20:24 <krisk__> ..which would potentially unfork these parts of the spec
21:20:30 <krisk__> rubys: 5.0 or 5.1?
21:20:34 <krisk__> robin: 5.0
21:20:49 <krisk__> robin: it's alot of small tiny items
21:21:12 <krisk__> tantek: The smaller the list looks the better
21:21:39 <krisk__> rubys: I'm worried about the schedule - 5.1 seems much safer in terms of risk
21:21:58 <krisk__> paulc: 2014 has alot of pressure
21:22:12 <krisk__> robin: It's not just the chairs
21:23:33 <krisk__> paulc: I agree with sam that doing this for 5.0 seems dangerous
21:24:15 <krisk__> rubys: I think 5.1 is better, it's been a long time since w3c published a html spec
21:24:47 <krisk__> paulc: I encourage the editors to do this on the list
21:24:57 <krisk__> robin: fair enough as long as we get to do this
21:25:19 <krisk__> rubys: The new work mode really opens this up for the editors
21:25:28 <paulc_> q?
21:25:44 <krisk__> tantek: last call comments can be made by anyone - including the editors
21:26:24 <krisk__> ..if you see easy ones that have new information the seems reasonable for last call
21:27:56 <paulc_> ack pa
21:27:59 <krisk__> paulc: I no longer need to be on the queue
21:28:07 <eliot> q+
21:28:14 <krisk__> tantek: Doing the human to human connection
21:28:42 <krisk__> ..is the right approach as paul mentioned
21:29:37 <krisk__> Eliot: what about the twitter account? Should we use it more?
21:30:13 <krisk__> tantek: I'd suggest you give the 'keys' to the chairs
21:30:45 <krisk__> paulc: would having the chairs use this be helpful?
21:30:56 <krisk__> group - yes, good oppertunity for w3c
21:31:03 <Hixie> so... have the chairs even acknowledged that they should consider not copying another group's work? or has the discussion moved on to something else without the topic being discussed?
21:32:39 <krisk__> paulc: Group has agreed to move to this new work mode
21:34:01 <krisk__> tantek: At minimum we should cite where it comes from
21:34:24 <krisk__> tantek: we should be explicit
21:34:27 <Hixie> if the source doesn't want the text to be copied, that doesn't seem like the minimum.
21:35:30 <krisk__> tantek: Two very big diffs in work mode exists - living spec vs w3c mode
21:35:33 <paulc_> q+
21:35:39 <paulc_> ack eliot
21:36:05 <darobin> q+
21:36:13 <krisk__> tantek: html5.0 and html5.1 is different than the living standard do to the diff work modes
21:36:47 <paulc_> ack darobin
21:37:48 <MarkS> q+
21:40:35 <MikeSmith> q?
21:40:41 <paulc_> ack paulc
21:41:12 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
21:42:20 <krisk__> marks: How do you feel we are doing with canvas?  We know of differences and have action items to follow up.
21:42:52 <krisk__> paulc: As others mentioned we have the constrains we are bound to work in..
21:43:15 <krisk__> ..In the case of canvas I would have recommend to use the extension spec process
21:48:51 <krisk__> TOPIC: Other spec updates - Extension specs, Polyglot and Image Description LC status
21:49:19 <krisk__> marks: Do you want to given an update to image description?
21:49:33 <xiaoqian> xiaoqian has joined #html-wg
21:49:48 <krisk__> marks: We hope to have londdesc CR document ready in the next few weeks
21:49:59 <krisk__> s/londdesc/longdesc/
21:50:15 <krisk__> marks: we were hoping to skip CR, but no won't be able to skip CR
21:50:32 <krisk__> paulc: Do you have a rough timetable?
21:51:53 <krisk__> paulc: so you have taken care of last call comments, so what is the general time for CR then?
21:52:03 <krisk__> marks: 4 weeks
21:52:11 <krisk__> paulc: and you do have tests as well
21:54:01 <krisk> krisk has joined #html-wg
21:54:15 <krisk> elitot: we have no bug but no test cases
21:54:39 <krisk> paulc: we need a list of items that need to enter CR
21:55:05 <krisk> paulc: I would think a list of items at risk and a list of tests to create so that multiple browsers pass each test
21:55:49 <krisk> s/elitot/eliot/
21:56:11 <krisk> paulc: seems like the chairs just need to continue work with the editors on timeframes for each
21:56:44 <krisk> paulc: plh do you think we should be doing these on the same schedule?  Or have them get pushed faster?
21:57:19 <krisk> plh: I think having longdesc shipped before html5 would be best
21:59:54 <krisk_> krisk_ has joined #html-wg
22:00:16 <krisk_> HTML5 tech for providing text alternates
22:00:53 <krisk_> This has been moved into html5 and will be published as a note
22:01:18 <krisk_> Next is using WAI-ARIA in HTML
22:01:43 <paulc_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Apr/0007.html
22:03:07 <krisk_> If you have any comments on this plan you should respond back and/or work with the editors
22:03:21 <krisk_> Next is HTML Forms JSON submissions
22:04:17 <paulc_> http://darobin.github.io/formic/specs/json/
22:04:40 <krisk_> robin: I have one issue that needs to be adressed - one or two paragraphs and then it can for to first pub working draft
22:05:20 <silvia> silvia has joined #html-wg
22:05:25 <krisk_> robin
22:06:44 <paulc_> XML:ID extension spec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Jan/0157.html
22:06:49 <krisk> krisk has joined #html-wg
22:07:06 <krisk> Lief's xml spec will not move forwards at this point
22:07:48 <krisk> hober: source set has implementations in a few browsers
22:08:03 <krisk> ..so that I think we will have two+ implementation so that it can go to CR
22:08:27 <krisk> paulc: We have 2 bugs and no heartbeats recently?
22:08:57 <krisk> paulc: can we get an update or come back?
22:09:17 <krisk> darobin: We can do a heartbeat that would be doable
22:10:02 <krisk> darobin: The extension spec was crowd funded to be implemented!
22:10:25 <darobin> go give money! https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/picture-element-implementation-in-blink
22:10:54 <krisk> hober: What I expect to happen is that source set can go to CR with items not impl be marked 'at risk'
22:11:08 <plh> q+
22:11:40 <krisk> paulc: having both published at the same time would be great
22:12:08 <krisk> q-
22:12:09 <paulc_> ack Mark
22:12:22 <paulc_> ack plh
22:12:23 <plh> http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/subresourceintegrity/
22:12:30 <paulc_> Summary:
22:12:38 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
22:12:40 <hober> s/source set/srcset/g
22:12:48 <krisk> plh: I wanted to make this group be aware - src set as well
22:12:59 <paulc_> a) Editors will work on publishing heartbeats of <picture> element and srcset attribute at the same time
22:13:33 <paulc_> b) XML:id extensions spec work is not going forward
22:13:46 <krisk> Their is an extension spec in webapps that may conflict
22:13:52 <paulc_> c) ARIA in HTML work is being refactored and will done in HTML 5.1 timeframe
22:14:20 <rubys> rubys has joined #html-wg
22:14:25 <paulc_> d) Alt text alternatives in HTML has been folded in HTML 5.0 and will be published as a WG Note
22:14:29 <rubys> s/Their is/There is/
22:14:33 <paulc_> e) Polyglot will go to CR
22:14:44 <paulc_> f) Image Description will go to CR
22:16:13 <tantek> <br>
22:16:19 <paulc_> g) JSON extension spec will go to FPWD when Robin can complete the current work
22:16:24 <krisk> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:16:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-html-wg-minutes.html krisk
22:17:36 <paulc_> Correction: Early discussion of Using ARIA in HTML should have been about HTML to Platform A11Y API implementation Guide.
22:30:10 <jinsong> jinsong has joined #html-wg
22:44:25 <gitbot> gitbot has joined #html-wg
22:44:25 <gitbot> [13syntax] 15sideshowbarker pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/validator/syntax/commit/e55cfdc11c4c1e1178ad1b87eeaa121390b95530
22:44:25 <gitbot> 13syntax/06master 14e55cfdc 15Michael[tm] Smith: Warn for year < 1000 || year > 3000.
22:44:25 <gitbot> gitbot has left #html-wg
22:45:52 <paulc_> RE: c) ARIA in HTML work is being refactored and will done in HTML 5.1 timeframe
22:46:16 <paulc_> This should refer to the API Implementation Guide work.
22:46:32 <krisk> TOPIC: HTML 5.1
22:46:39 <paulc_> The status of the ARIA in HTML work is under discussion in A11Y TF
22:47:18 <krisk> rubys: First of is list of bugs - we have 235 bugs
22:47:46 <krisk> darobin: Most of these have not been touched, as we have been pushing for CR
22:48:22 <krisk> paulc: Have you looked to see if any of these are potentially for HTML5.0? Maybe editorial quick wins
22:48:56 <krisk> Link -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=REOPENED&component=HTML5%20spec&list_id=32878&product=HTML%20WG
22:49:13 <paulc_> HTML 5.1 timeline: See http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
22:49:54 <paulc_> HTMl 5.1 Last Call:          2014 Q3
22:50:42 <krisk> darobin: When we have shipped 5.0 - we can tidy up and then look for items that are implemented
22:51:04 <paulc_> HTML 5.0 LCf:  2014 Q3
22:51:10 <krisk> ..so that we have one source document and just remove items that are not stable is the optimal work mode
22:51:33 <krisk> ..shipping once a year would be my ideal schedule
22:51:59 <krisk> rubys: working back on the dates would be intresting
22:52:20 <krisk> darobin: I would hope for a .1 would not need 2 years
22:52:40 <krisk> ..we have a bunch of items in place that should help shorted CR periods
22:53:10 <krisk> ..even if we only have a few features
22:53:20 <krisk> rubys: Maybe late 2015 early 2016
22:53:55 <krisk> plh: what does it mean for CR, last call dates, etc...
22:54:10 <paulc_> q+
22:54:35 <krisk> darobin: in theory by then cr and lc will be merged so it'll be lcr which is shorter
22:54:57 <krisk> darobin: Maybe late October we enter lcr?
22:55:40 <krisk> paulc: Can we update the early deliverable on LC for HTMl5.1 by Q3 2014
22:56:56 <jkiss> jkiss has joined #html-wg
22:57:16 <krisk> Is it reasonable to shift focus later in summer to attack 5.1 (bugs) once other specs have progressed?
22:57:56 <krisk> paulc: The goal was that HTMl5.1 would show progress when HTML5 ships
22:57:59 <krisk> ..in 2014
22:58:16 <krisk> darobin: It makes sense to show progress on 5.1 when 5.0 ships..
22:58:29 <krisk> I think the Q3 2014 for LC for 5.1
22:59:01 <krisk> ..knowning that their is alot more features in 5.1 and the LCR time dates are smaller
22:59:37 <krisk> darobin: I would say Q2 2015 and skip CR so that rec occurs in Q4 2015
22:59:59 <jgraham> jgraham has joined #html-wg
23:00:06 <krisk> darobin: since the plan should be to just remove items that are not implemented
23:00:17 <krisk> rubys: So then we need to start a 5.2 then right?
23:00:38 <krisk> darobin: yes
23:01:19 <krisk> rubys: I really think this removes pressure, for items at risk if we get into a yearly schedule
23:01:32 <adrianba> +1
23:01:40 <krisk> +2
23:02:10 <krisk> plh: the charter ends at june 2015
23:02:20 <krisk> darobin: I think this will not be an issue
23:02:54 <krisk> paulc: I was thinking about how we communicate the changes
23:03:35 <krisk> paulc: we don't have to update the charter, but we do need to inform the AC
23:03:46 <paulc_> Current schedule is in the charter: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html
23:04:22 <krisk> rubys: Then we should communicate LC for 5.1 won't happen in Q3 and that we are going to ship HTML5.1 earlier
23:04:40 <silvia> silvia has joined #html-wg
23:04:45 <krisk> rubys: Editors should start to think about a date for 5.2 bugs
23:04:59 <krisk> darobins: we can actually use the milestone field in bugzilla :)
23:05:48 <krisk> paulc: Getting this list of bug and plan is important, especially with all the 5.0 work
23:06:16 <krisk> darobin: I don't think it's reasonable to work on this until HTML5 gets to PR (can't speak about other editors)
23:06:36 <krisk> paulc: maybe other editors can work on 5.1 bugs
23:06:42 <krisk> hober: that seem reasonable
23:06:49 <krisk> s/seem/seems/
23:07:21 <krisk> paulc: do we know the AB schedule for section 7 in the process document and when it will come into effect
23:08:39 <krisk_> krisk_ has joined #html-wg
23:08:54 <krisk_> paulc: Let me ask two qs
23:09:16 <rubys> q?
23:09:47 <plh> q+
23:09:49 <plh> ack paul
23:10:07 <tantek> Process improvement project: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process
23:10:12 <krisk_> In 5.0 we needed to go to no just last call, but pre-last call
23:11:05 <krisk_> Do we think we will need this for 5.1?
23:11:20 <krisk_> paulc: so are we ok that 5.0 is marching to be done...
23:11:38 <krisk_> we are just really asking for a review for 5.1 which is much smaller in scope than 5.0
23:11:54 <krisk_> ..so that the model for 5.1 can be much differenet
23:12:01 <krisk_> darobin: yes
23:12:31 <krisk_> paulc: I think it's key to communicate this diff
23:13:12 <krisk_> paulc: Next is that I think the ally focus are thinking the 5.1 timeframe will be the same as 5.0
23:13:35 <krisk_> paulc: basically we have to communicate this outside an inside the group
23:14:02 <krisk_> rubys: In theory if we do ship yearly then it should not be problem, like other 'at risk features'
23:14:44 <tantek> q+ to ask why are people considering "5.1 timeframe" for new features? not a good framing. new specs/features should go in extension specs which have their own timelines.
23:14:52 <krisk_> * krisk_ says goodbye to krisk
23:15:13 <plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Mar/0019.html
23:15:15 <krisk_> paulc: that is my point, maybe do a paln 2016
23:15:24 <rubys> d/paln/plan/
23:15:24 <krisk_> s/paln/plan/
23:15:55 <krisk_> plh: we can use new process if we are not in last call...
23:16:13 <krisk_> ..if you are in last call then you can't use the new process
23:16:24 <rubys> q?
23:16:28 <rubys> ack plh
23:17:30 <krisk_> paulc: the only spec that this could impact I *think* is EME
23:17:30 <rubys> ack next
23:17:31 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask why are people considering "5.1 timeframe" for new features? not a good framing. new specs/features should go in extension specs which have their own
23:17:31 <Zakim> ... timelines.
23:18:09 <krisk_> tantek: I was confused about extension specs and 5.1
23:19:31 <krisk_> paulc: you should read the ally TF work
23:19:59 <krisk_> paulc: I think they are really looking at 5.0 in 2014 and then 5.1 2016
23:20:34 <krisk_> tantek: I'm all for lining up to other schedules, though it goes against the spirt of extension specs
23:21:31 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes
23:21:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-html-wg-minutes.html plh
23:21:40 <krisk_> paulc: The api mapping document pre-dates the concept of extension specs
23:21:51 <plh> Meeting: HTML Working Group face-to-face meeting
23:22:08 <plh> Chair: Paul and Sam
23:22:33 <krisk_> rubys: Their is a very human aspect to this...
23:23:04 <krisk_> ..other people want to work with us and we should reach out
23:23:57 <krisk_> ..I think the main purpose of this discusion was to get an idea on the schedule - 2016 may not make sense, or that we can get some agreement about moving to a new yearly schedule
23:24:17 <rubys> q?
23:24:19 <krisk_> ..which will lead to a set of action items where stuff can land  - 5.1, 5.2 etc..
23:24:19 <plh> Present: MarkS, MarkV, Sam, Plh, Maciej, Adrian, Xiaoqian, Joe, Kris, Robin, Tantek, Ted, Arnaud, Erika, Jay, Eliot, Mike, Bob, Glenn, Cynthia, Paul
23:24:23 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes
23:24:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/08-html-wg-minutes.html plh
23:24:31 <krisk_> rubys: did your point get covered?
23:24:59 <krisk_> tantek: I think so and it's matter of communicating and moving forward
23:25:17 <xiaoqian> Present+ zqzhang
23:25:35 <krisk_> marks: This really is not an extension spec, it's a whole document
23:26:02 <krisk_> rubys: I'm trying to decouple the labels - 5.1, 5.2, 5.005 and focus on the date
23:26:49 <krisk_> paulc: when we revist at risk features tomorrow we should leverage this as well
23:27:54 <krisk_> paulc: Do you think the json spec would rolled in or stay seperate
23:28:28 <MarkS> s/a whole document/a series of documents one of which involves HTML, with a core spec published by PF,
23:29:39 <krisk_> darobin: If a feature doesn't need to be in the main spec, especially if it has no other dependancies
23:30:03 <krisk_> darobin: so with JSON it should be seperate
23:31:12 <krisk_> rubys: The next item in topic is ally wishlist
23:31:14 <krisk_> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/51wishlist
23:31:25 <rubys> rubys has joined #html-wg
23:31:37 <krisk_> darobin: I think we need to talk about the content editable and the 5.1 timeframe
23:31:53 <krisk_> * br vs div vs p tag?
23:32:37 <krisk_> paulc: OK we can get 15 to talk about tomorrow
23:32:43 <adrianba> Extensible Web Summit home page: http://lanyrd.com/2014/extensible-web-summit/
23:32:43 <krisk_> plh: some are not part of HTML
23:34:46 <krisk_> darobin: having more details (use case) would be very helpful...not picking oh Haptic output,
23:35:15 <krisk_> ...it's just that it doesn't have info on what exists today and where it fails, etc..
23:36:53 <krisk_> cynthia: menu has issue(s)
23:37:10 <krisk_> rubys: details and summary are just missing implementations
23:37:34 <krisk_> darobin: yes it's not about the spec, or if we have tests, just not enough implementation
23:38:07 <krisk_> marks: This is not a complete list and indeed needs more refinement
23:38:47 <krisk_> cynthia: content editable has accessibility issue
23:39:04 <krisk_> plh: yes content editable needs work
23:39:38 <krisk_> marks: I'll update the wish list with some details and use cases
23:39:44 <krisk_> darobin: thanks
23:40:03 <krisk_> TOPIC: Datetime input timezone issues
23:40:32 <krisk_> travil won't be able to discuss due to being on vacation (previously planned)
23:41:07 <krisk_> tantek: Is this about 5.0?
23:41:27 <krisk_> bug 16597
23:41:41 <krisk_> tantek: has this been fixed in 5.0?
23:41:46 <paulc_> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16957
23:41:52 <krisk_> darobin: yes it has been moved to 5.0
23:42:18 <krisk_> paulc: note the keyword 'CR' - it means it was fixed in the 5.0 CR
23:43:13 <krisk_> tantek: What is health warning?
23:43:26 <paulc_> See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16957#c6 for Travis's comment about resolving this in 5.0
23:43:46 <krisk_> darobin: Basically is you use this input you might mess up...it's not normative
23:44:00 <krisk_> next bug is 16959
23:44:13 <paulc_> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16959
23:44:26 <krisk_> * I was about to paste that in paul :)
23:45:24 <krisk_> paulc: Is this in 5.0?
23:45:33 <krisk_> tantek: Me too since it had the CR removed
23:46:01 <krisk_> darobin: why is it still open, it looks like the change was made and intl is happy?
23:46:16 <krisk_> edoyle: Kept open since it was part of the F2F
23:46:40 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
23:47:21 <krisk_> tantek: It raised the flag since it seems to have diverged?
23:47:35 <krisk_> tantek: maybe not an issue if it has not been implemented
23:48:32 <krisk_> darobin: what is the current status of datetime input types with this bug
23:50:30 <krisk_> tantek: Whatever the path is forward drop datetime-local, or has same functionality as datetime gets in back in sync
23:50:50 <krisk_> tantek: since this bug was just fixed, but was last talked about in june 2013
23:51:16 <krisk_> paulc: is the simple issue just change local to floating?
23:51:41 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, [Paypal], in Team_(html-wg)17:52Z
23:51:43 <Zakim> Team_(html-wg)17:52Z has ended
23:51:43 <Zakim> Attendees were JohnJansen, [Paypal]
23:52:34 <krisk_> tantek: seems like this is confusing enough to drop for 5.0
23:53:51 <krisk_> darobin: Only pre-blink Opera has support for input datetime
23:54:08 <krisk_> s/input datetime/input type=datetime/
23:54:22 <krisk_> tantek: Then indeed we should remove from 5.0
23:54:32 <krisk_> paulc: this is on the at risk list already
23:54:46 <krisk_> rubys: yes we will discuss tomorrow
23:55:20 <krisk_> paulc: darobin can you do quick check what changes have been made?
23:55:30 <krisk_> rubys: The bug(s) has links to the diffs
23:56:02 <krisk_> rubys: No real reason to worry about these bugs since indeed the whole section is at risk to be removed
23:56:42 <krisk_> tantek: The other reason was that it touches on two items...
23:57:00 <krisk_> one if this was actually well implemented we would have a big issue
23:57:48 <krisk_> ...it raises the issue of new features that have no implemetations
23:58:25 <krisk_> ..it could be that the idea is bad and the group could propose a different solution
23:58:56 <krisk_> ..for example a extentsion spec that gets implementations