07:09:07 RRSAgent has joined #html
07:09:07 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-irc
07:09:16 Zakim has joined #html
07:09:37 Meeting: Future of HTML (TPAC)
07:09:45 myakura has joined #html
07:09:53 adrianba has joined #html
07:11:02 jet has joined #html
07:11:11 chaals has joined #html
07:11:32 chaals has changed the topic to: "Future of HTML at W3C"
07:12:23 CMN: This is one of many discussions about the future of HTML at W3C.
07:12:35 YusukeN has joined #html
07:12:36 Kepeng has joined #html
07:13:02 annevk has joined #html
07:13:06 yuwei has joined #html
07:13:07 xiaoqian has joined #html
07:13:32 ... The Web Platform (WP) WG has been created.
07:13:38 rus has joined #html
07:14:30 ... HTML continues to exist, but the HTML spec is in scope for WP now.
07:14:33 ymasao has joined #html
07:14:48 jeff has joined #html
07:15:02 ... The question is - What do we do with HTML?
07:15:37 ... The last couple of years were focused on shipping 5.0.
07:15:57 ... Then we fell out of the habit of working on HTML.
07:15:59 q+
07:16:14 ... There is a draft 5.1 spec.
07:16:19 nsakai has joined #html
07:16:37 ... It's produced through a painful process. Editing the spec is hard work, and we'd like to change that.
07:16:39 Yuma has joined #html
07:17:19 ... Other questions - What's broken in HTML? What's missing from HTML?
07:17:28 ... What bugs need to be fixed?
07:17:35 wydong_CM has joined #html
07:17:52 ... The answer is that quite a bit is broken, like some of the forms stuff introduced to 5.0.
07:18:14 YusukeN_ has joined #html
07:18:15 ... There are bugs with features like accesskey.
07:18:42 ... There may be new things we want to add, like the draft proposal for panels.
07:19:10 plh has joined #html
07:19:32 kokabe has joined #html
07:19:34 ... We want to hear from you what you think we should be doing?
07:19:48 q?
07:19:51 ack next
07:20:13 paulc has joined #html
07:20:19 present+ paulc
07:20:19 DS: We need documentation so people can understand how new features get added to HTML.
07:20:31 ... What can be accomplised, what the constraints are etc.
07:20:41 q+
07:20:58 d_ozawa0528 has joined #html
07:21:00 CMN: You need to show that there is interest in your proposed idea.
07:21:14 Hax has joined #html
07:21:22 jay has joined #html
07:21:24 ... The Web Incubator (WICG) has been created to do this.
07:21:33 rrsagent, make minutes
07:21:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
07:22:00 ... There are constraints. You have to have stuff that's in scope, but it's a broad scope.
07:22:43 sam_ has joined #html
07:23:16 hta has joined #html
07:23:38 paulJeong has joined #html
07:23:47 AB: The charter for WP explicitly calls out that new proposals should go through some incubation, either in WICG or somewhere else.
07:24:42 ... As a rep for Microsoft, one thing we want to see in HTML is a place for us to identify and discuss issues that we see affecting real websites - causing browser interoperability problems.
07:25:34 ... We want a venue to discuss these issues.
07:25:52 karl has joined #html
07:25:56 q+
07:26:02 ack adr
07:26:04 ack ad
07:26:10 ivan_ has joined #html
07:26:44 KD: We're doing the same thing as Mozilla.
07:26:54 ack kar
07:27:02 ... We're noticing differences in implementations, sometimes bcause properties are not well described in the spec.
07:27:45 shepazu has joined #html
07:27:49 ... From our stats, if we don't use vendor prefixes (for CSS transitions for example) things break.
07:27:49 q+
07:28:07 ... We've created a compatibility project on Github.
07:28:25 ... So we can bring these issues to the WG.
07:29:08 CMN: We need to do bug fixing, and ship that.
07:29:08 ack me
07:29:31 DS: It's clear implementors are interested in talking about existing features especially those that cause problems.
07:29:45 https://github.com/whatwg/compat/
07:29:46 ... Other people in the room are interested in proposing new work, like panels.
07:30:02 ... What can we do to get new work?
07:30:07 rrsagent, make minutes
07:30:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
07:30:27 CMN: Something like Web Components make it possible to prototype and test proposed implementations.
07:31:19 ... If we identify common features being created in Web Components, it signals patterns that could be made native to HTML.
07:33:01 MW: To answer Doug, you take a new idea hopefully with prollyfill prototypes, convince people it's valuable. Go through the intent to migrate form to document the business case for the proposal.
07:33:19 ... At that point the proposal enters the queue to enter the WG.
07:33:28 DS: But what is the thing that will convince people to do that?
07:33:40 MW: The deciders of whether it'll go into the HTML spec is the W WG.
07:33:56 a
07:34:18 s/W WG/WP WG/
07:34:40 CMN: If you come up with a good idea but there is no implementor interest, you'll have a hard time making the case for it.
07:34:53 YusukeN_JP has joined #html
07:35:02 ... There are other paths. If there is a widely used code pattern that may be enough to make the case to implementors.
07:35:12 rrsagent, make minutes
07:35:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
07:35:23 zqzhang has joined #html
07:35:24 ... One of the constraints is that the proposal has to be relevant.
07:35:38 ... Adding a new feature is notably harder than fixing a bug where something is broken.
07:36:37 Paul: When I was developing mobile game content in HTML5 there were problems. Even same device and same OS, but different display, there were bugs.
07:36:52 ... There are device comparability issues at the moment.
07:37:12 ... Device manufacturers should also take an interest in the HTML spec.
07:37:41 ... As the mobile industry is growing, analytics tell us that a lot of mobile development is platform native.
07:37:48 ... Can HTML5 overcome that?
07:38:11 What do u think about ppk's view?
07:38:20 CMN: Will HTML5 gain market share over native languages on mobile?
07:38:43 ... Who knows? The market share will shift, but it doesn't seem that HTML is going to disappear.
07:38:53 rrsagent, make minutes
07:38:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
07:39:24 ... It isn't our job to owrry about what the mobile platforms do. We can look at those platforms to see what's working well, and ask why.
07:39:54 ... In HTML we stay away from saying how things should look/be displayed.
07:40:15 ... So the question about some device display issuesis - where are those issues happening?
07:41:19 MW: Do you plan to document a workflow for this?
07:41:33 ... If a developer is wrestling with an issue, how do they engage with the WG?
07:42:00 CMN: We do plan to document it.
07:42:17 ... There is some, but it's still in development.
07:42:40 ... The HTML WG historically had a heavy decision making rocess.
07:43:19 ... It was easier in WebApps because they were smaller documents and specs. HTML cannot be called small.
07:43:25 ... We're also learning as we go.
07:43:47 ... We would like to release a version of HTML within the current charter (10 months).
07:44:08 ... Not with major changes, but with bug fixes for identified issues.
07:44:21 ... Having a better spec is useful.
07:44:28 rrsagent, draft minutes
07:44:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html yuwei
07:44:30 ... Possible timetable would be the middle of next year.
07:45:01 ... Whether it's HTML5 with fixes, or HTML6.0 with new features is a question, and along the way we'll learn more about working with HTML.
07:45:21 ... Last year at TPAC we discussed modularising the HTML spec.
07:45:51 ... Thinking was that it was a god idea. But it didn't get done. The publication machinery didn't work with the concept.
07:46:13 ... Do we want to continue to look at modularisation? Add modules only for new features? We don't know.
07:46:19 rrsagent, make minutes
07:46:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
07:47:09 PC: An important question is whether you'll include extensions in the spec, or treat them as separate things.
07:47:16 CMN: That's a question for the group.
07:47:36 PC: Extensions releases the pressure of needing all the box-cars on the same train.
07:48:49 CMN: It's useful to have a concept of what HTML is currently. Instead of the living standard model.
07:49:46 ... If we release a spec every 10 years that would be a failure. If we release a spec every 10 days it gets harder for developers to have a version of the spec they can work with. Somehwere in between is the sweet spot.
07:50:04 AK: Why?
07:50:14 CMN: Translation is time consuming and difficult.
07:50:46 s/AK: Why?/AVK: Why?/
07:52:02 ... W3C works with the idea specs need to be stable. There are editor's drafts for the updates as they happen.
07:52:51 DS: Any thoughts on the future of HTML, rather than the process?
07:53:40 Open HTML5 bugs (231): https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=HTML5%20spec&list_id=60457&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
07:53:47 TL: It would be nice to start fixing the bugs.
07:54:06 ... Is there anything to stop someone from proposing a fix? If not, where do I send the proposed fix?
07:54:29 CMN: We have machinery to generate the HTML spec.
07:54:39 HTML 5.1 setup: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2015Feb/0009.html
07:54:41 q+
07:54:57 ... You can make a fix using the current publication process. It's my belief the current process is too heavy to be convenient.
07:55:09 PLH: How do you propose fixing bugs?
07:55:41 Open HTML.Next bugs (30): https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?list_id=60458&product=HTML.next&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
07:55:46 CMN: We can change the current process, or we could look at the current process and we may find it isn't as difficult as we think.
07:55:50 DS: Can you own a bug?
07:56:14 CMN: Yes, and you can submit a fix - by writing a patch or even by writing an email with the information in (for small bugs).
07:56:20 TL: Then PLH ill fix it?
07:56:48 PC: we need to fix the process. There are 250+ bugs, plus others in different components and stil more in the WHATWG repo.
07:56:58 ... We don't know how important those bugs are.
07:57:32 ... We need to figure out which bugs are causing interoperability problems, and which are valid in other ways, rahter than start an enforced bug fixing march.
07:57:43 rrsagent, make minutes
07:57:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
07:58:26 CMN: There won't be a forced march because we don't have anyone to force!
07:58:46 MW: For the last three years there was a full time person who was the HTML editor.
07:58:55 ... Right now there is a handful of volunteers.
07:59:04 rrsagent, make minutes
07:59:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
07:59:18 CMN: We need to make the diting process easy for those editors.
07:59:43 s/diting/editing/
07:59:45 Karl, thanks.
08:00:08 it's not complete but it could be a start.
08:00:34 TL: Do we need to be concerned about having the document diverge from the WHATWG copu?
08:01:04 TO: I've been splitting bugs in WHATWG and that propagates to W3C.
08:01:20 CMN: The issue with the mechanism is that it makes editing the W3C spec difficult.
08:01:33 ... Also raises the question of whether we want to copy WHATWG at all?
08:01:53 ... One option is that we stop doing that.
08:02:14 ... The specs already diverge.
08:03:02 ... Do we take the hit that the specs drift slightly more apart?
08:03:12 TL: That would break Ted's approach?
08:03:15 CMN: It would.
08:03:24 I encourage people to read Robin's plan http://darobin.github.io/after5/html-plan.html that the HTML WG Chairs presented to the W3C AB in January.
08:03:28 q+
08:03:28 TO: Right now the mechanism works.
08:03:52 ack pau
08:04:32 PC: What works for HTML5 which has a large interested community, is making sure you identify the imortant questions that need to be answered - then get people's opinions.
08:04:50 ... The link ^^ is to Robin's HTML plan. It considers many of these questions.
08:04:57 rrsagent, make minutes
08:04:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
08:05:12 ... Should we be date driven?
08:05:29 ... It is a tar ball of complexity!
08:05:50 JJ: Responding to Travis' question.
08:06:13 ... What would implementor's like us to do? we have people from Google, Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft here.
08:06:40 ... Editor's drafts that track/update daily/weekly/monthly? A 5.1 release?
08:06:56 ack jeff
08:07:10 q+
08:07:19 TL: At MS we tend to go to the WHATWG spec because it's current, and that's what you want when fixing interoperability bugs.
08:07:45 ... Don't have an opinion on the publishing process. But it can be grief.
08:08:28 TL: The WHATWG version feels like an editor's draft.
08:08:57 JF: Why not bring those into the W3C version?
08:09:28 TL: anything that makes the task of putting the spec through IPR more difficult is not good.
08:09:33 ack kar
08:10:22 KD: The WHATWG repo (link ^^) is a good place to track issues.
08:10:48 shepazu has joined #html
08:10:57 CMN: Yandex is a browser vendor and content producer. We don't really care about spec divergence all that much.
08:11:07 ... We wnt the spec to reflect reality though.
08:11:16 rrsagent, make minutes
08:11:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
08:11:51 ... For some of what we do the WHATWG spec is terrible - it's difficult for someone who uses HTML but doesn't write specs to understand.
08:12:13 s/link ^^/https://github.com/whatwg/compat /
08:12:37 ... We think IPR is important.
08:12:43 ... We like the idea of smaller pieces.
08:13:05 s/to track issues/to track issues only for broken stuff. Contributions are more than welcome. And it's small./
08:13:08 zakim queue?
08:13:21 CMN: How do people look up HTML info?
08:13:40 JJ: Want to hear from others in the room.
08:14:02 JG: At Mozilla we tell developers to look at the WHATWG spec, because otherwise they'll update something that's out of date.
08:14:36 JV: It's welcome to hear MS looks at the WHATWG spec.
08:14:47 sam_ has joined #html
08:14:51 ... We also think the IPR W3C offers is valuable, but it needs to move faster.
08:15:11 CMN: We hear from WHATWG that they want us to stop copying from them.
08:15:36 ... Do people here feel we should copy because there is value in IPR?
08:15:57 ... Are you encouraging us to copy it, or asking us to provide IPR without using the text we want protected, or something else?
08:16:12 JV: There is spec work outside W3C that allows normative references.
08:16:24 CMN: If you reference the IPR doesn't cover.
08:16:52 MW: One way forward would be for WHATWG to operate in a way that created stable snapshots that could be put through IPR.
08:17:06 ... Consensus is also something to consider.
08:17:21 ... Do we have to revisit this philosophical divide?
08:18:07 CMN: One option would be for WHATWG to come and work inside W3C. Tht seems unlikely.
08:18:19 TL: It would be good if we could reach agreement with WHATWG.
08:18:35 ... I would like to contribute. I don't, but want to.
08:18:42 PLH: What stops you?
08:18:57 TL: I don't want to give away IP protection for work not covered by W3C IPR.
08:19:03 rrsagent, where am i?
08:19:03 See http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-irc#T08-19-03
08:19:17 CMN: I would like to contribute, butmy experience is not easy to contribute to - evne in comparison to HTML at W3C.
08:19:23 rrsagent, make minutes
08:19:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html LJWatson
08:19:33 TL: You can get work done.
08:19:51 MW: Was that a reference to the previous editor of WHATWG, or the current editorial team?
08:20:13 jgraham has joined #html
08:20:28 ... The process of working on the spec is easier in WHATWG.
08:21:07 JG: With the new process we've tried to get new contributors involved.
08:21:34 ... When they've found problems the WHATWG documentation is updated.
08:21:59 PC: Hate to remind people of history... the reason Robin's orting system is so broken is because of the differences between the two spec versions.
08:22:24 ... You can't just pul the WHATWG spec into W3C because it would break years of HTML WG consensus.
08:22:34 ... It may be feasible, but if so it should be done intentionally.
08:22:35 q+
08:22:51 ... The tooling also makes editing the 5.1 spec essentially impossible.
08:23:31 ... Ted have you ever checked a fix submitted in WHATWG to see that it makes it through to 5.1?
08:23:47 TO: Most recently I've done things on canvas, so not sure.
08:24:04 PC: so that's separate from the HTML spec.
08:24:25 JJ: Seems we agree on a lot of things.
08:24:56 ... We want a very responsive publication process. We want patent protection. We want to solve portaility problems.
08:25:26 ... I'm hearing tha... We don't have a plan to get done what we all want to get done.
08:25:42 ... Suggest the chairs and team try to bring together the right set of people to build that plan. What are we waiting for?
08:26:03 CMN: We wanted to listen to what people think.
08:26:12 ... Yes, we need to develop a plan.
08:27:08 NS: There are differences but most developers don't know and don't care.
08:27:24 ... browser developers in China also don't know.
08:27:48