19:49:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #html-editors
19:49:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-html-editors-irc
19:49:39 <LJWatson> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
19:49:46 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
19:49:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-html-editors-minutes.html LJWatson
20:00:17 <LJWatson> present+ LJWatson
20:00:29 <LJWatson> Regrets: Alex
20:02:14 <LJWatson> present+ Steve
20:04:30 <chaals> chaals has joined #html-editors
20:04:50 <plh> present+
20:05:12 <plh> present- Alex
20:05:16 <plh> present- Travis
20:05:23 <plh> present- Chaals
20:05:48 <plh> present- Léonie
20:06:06 <plh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/team-html-editors/2016Aug/0005.html
20:06:07 <LJWatson> zakim, take up item 1
20:06:07 <Zakim> agendum 1. "longdesc http://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507" taken up [from LJWatson]
20:06:36 <plh> arronei?
20:06:41 <plh> Travis?
20:07:32 <arronei> Travis and I are connecting now
20:10:51 <plh> http://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507
20:12:58 <plh> Travis: Ade says he isn't a big fan of this integration
20:13:13 <plh> ... it's important that we articulate what has been added to the spec
20:13:20 <plh> ... making it clear what we have done
20:13:26 <plh> ... and then he has a list of thigns
20:13:41 <plh> ... 1) removing the attribute from the deprecated list
20:13:56 <plh> Steve: was in the obsolete section of the spec
20:14:13 <plh> Travis: (very reasonnable)
20:14:33 <plh> ... we added examples: unnecessary in Ade opiion but editorial only
20:14:41 <plh> ... added a reference, unnecessary but ok
20:14:48 <chaals> -> https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/9bb5b54b618d4708af8abfa19c7cd3bece097166 exactly what we added…
20:14:57 <plh> ... added some technical details, which he is not certain on that one
20:15:17 <plh> ... but we didn't import the technical content which is already in the longdesc spec
20:15:30 <plh> ... [that was Ade feedback]
20:15:51 <plh> ... if we can outline these 4 points, he could clear the air
20:16:04 <plh> ... ie clearing the misunderstanding
20:16:33 <plh> Leonie: the issue is still open but the conversation disgressed
20:16:48 <plh> ... chaals believes it should be closed
20:17:00 <plh> ... others would lime to keep it open
20:17:20 <plh> ... Ade list is an accurate summary?
20:17:47 <plh> Chaals: not sure about the examples. attribute list yes. IDL attribute in.
20:18:18 <plh> q+
20:18:33 <plh> Leonie: we have this concept of applicable specs
20:18:57 <plh> ... an extension is not HTML5 conforming, ie HTML5 conformance doesn't depend on extensions
20:21:02 <plh> ack plh
20:21:04 <chaals> [+1 to remove the IDL piece]
20:21:19 <plh> plh: we should remove the IDL definition from HTML 5.1. it's already defined in the longdesc spec
20:21:35 <plh> ... unless we remove it, it will destroy our extension story
20:21:54 <plh> ... and it duplicates the definition, which isn't a good thing
20:22:03 <plh> Leonie: what about the examples?
20:23:23 <plh> Steve: as long as the examples are non-normatives, we should be ok
20:23:49 <plh> Steve: the attribute shoudln't be listed in the attribute list
20:23:57 <plh> ... since it's defined through extensions
20:24:18 <plh> Leonie: so leave examples if those are non-normative but remove the attribute from the list
20:24:25 <plh> ... ok?
20:24:41 <plh> Travis: I think it's appropriate to keep the examples in
20:26:12 <plh> ... so we remove longdesc from the tables but keep it in examples since we want to show end to end scenario perhaps
20:26:21 <plh> Leonie: are we ok with that?
20:26:42 <plh> Chaals: so, assuming that we collect a set of specs that impact HTML, that seems ok to me
20:28:06 <plh> ... if we have 14 specs, which some who have 0 meaning outside of html, it should be clear that it's applicable to HTML
20:29:02 <plh> Leonie: if we have such list, that would be useful indeed
20:31:58 <plh> [discussion on where to put the "registry" of html elements and attributes]
20:33:51 <plh> plh: how about a group note and link it from the spec?
20:36:41 <plh> Summary: remove IDL attribute, and from the attribute/index list, propose to the Group to publish a Note and link the note from the spec. keep the examples.
20:37:15 <plh> [no pushback]
20:37:32 <LJWatson> zakim, next item
20:37:33 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Modularisation plan" taken up [from LJWatson]
20:38:11 <plh> Leonie: Mozilla wasn't/isn't happy with the lack of modularization
20:38:23 <plh> ... we need to start looking seriously for 5.2
20:38:32 <plh> ... and present a plan to the WG at TPAC
20:38:43 <plh> ... Travis mega patch is probably related to this?
20:39:21 <plh> Travis: I suggested that one way of modularizing the spec is to extract the pieces related to scripting (setting up the env, execution, ...)
20:39:31 <plh> ... pulling those into one document
20:40:01 <chaals> q+
20:40:03 <plh> ... it's an incremental benefit, but the desire to continue to do easy ports of WHATWG contributions in this area
20:40:15 <plh> ... a lot of really good changes are happening from Domenic
20:40:28 <plh> ... and we'd like to take a lot of that content and adapt it
20:40:50 <plh> ... a success here would be to modularize and make it easier to integrate
20:41:21 <plh> ... ideally, we wouldn't have the duality here, but modularization seems against their principle
20:41:40 <plh> ... an other case: web workers and web messaging
20:41:57 <plh> ... they felt by the way side that bringing back and update
20:42:43 <plh> Chaals: +1 to Travis. splitting different from WHATWG will make hard for people working across the 2
20:43:23 <plh> ... make it harder for folks to keep it in sync
20:45:31 <plh> Travis: Ade is working on a plan to align with WHATWG. could lead to a closer relations or could get the situation worst
20:46:06 <plh> ... I'm interested in finding a way to do the modularization with the WHATWG as well
20:46:57 <plh> ... perhaps we could start with html parsing
20:47:07 <plh> ... we could make a module for that
20:47:18 <plh> ... and it's straightforward
20:47:29 <chaals> [+1 for splitting out parsing]
20:47:32 <plh> ... like the DOM parsing spec
20:47:47 <plh> Leonie: we already spinned out aria btw
20:49:06 <plh> Travis: we should think about modularization the parts of html that are least likely to change
20:49:20 <plh> ... would be easier to update in the future
20:49:41 <plh> ... html parser has bug but not really an active part of the spec
20:49:56 <plh> Leonie: can you provide a list of stable areas of the spec?
20:49:59 <plh> Travis: sure
20:50:22 <plh> ACTION: Travis to provide a list of stable parts of the spec as potential candidates for modules
20:50:32 <LJWatson> `zakim, take up next item
20:50:35 <plh> Topic: 5.1 implementation report
20:51:23 <plh> [Thanks to Chaals for producing an implementation report]
20:51:41 <plh> Chaals: "scooped us from WHATWG" isn't a useful comment
20:51:46 <plh> ... so document your changes
20:52:00 <plh> ... one thing which is not implemented
20:52:15 <plh> ... :dir is only in Firefox
20:52:28 <plh> ... and one thing that is only in Blink
20:52:42 <plh> ... current proposal is to go to PR without warning for those
20:52:54 <plh> ... so that we can start focusing on html 5.2
20:53:02 <plh> s/without/with/
20:53:11 <plh> ... it's possible that the implementation report is shaky
20:53:22 <Travis> [+1 to Chaals' plan to push forward with current implementation report]
20:53:42 <plh> q+
20:53:46 <plh> ack chaals
20:54:51 <chaals> ack pl
20:55:08 <chaals> PLH: dir is implemented in Firefox, but isn't an HTML feature
20:55:23 <chaals> … for promises rejection handlers, blink has partial implementation, and that's it.
20:56:01 <chaals> … looking at that and probablySupportsContext(), compard to re-doing the CR process in toto to clean that up looks like a lot of work.
20:56:52 <plh> chaals: we forgot some bits related to multiple for input/range
20:56:59 <plh> ... there is a PR to remove the rest
20:57:26 <plh> Leonie: so, we're good for a CfC?
20:57:42 <plh> Chaals: editors should add a note
20:57:51 <plh> Steve: I'll do it
20:58:57 <plh> ... I'll do a PR for longdesc as well
20:59:06 <LJWatson> zakim, take up next item
20:59:06 <Zakim> agendum 3. "5.1 implementation report" taken up [from LJWatson]
20:59:17 <plh> Topic: WHATWG triage
20:59:47 <plh> Leonie: can we meet on August 15?
20:59:54 <plh> Steve: I'm away
21:00:06 <chaals> s/15/16
21:00:10 <plh> Chaals: difficult for me
21:00:23 <plh> Leonie: August 9?
21:00:30 <plh> Steve: I'll be in a plance
21:00:36 <plh> s/ance/ane/
21:00:46 <plh> [dates are flying]
21:00:57 <plh> August 30
21:01:21 <plh> Chaals: I can do 24 and 25 as well
21:01:49 <plh> August 25, time to be defined
21:01:55 <plh> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/550
21:01:55 <chaals> s/24 and//
21:05:18 <plh> [plh raised the MSE issue 550]
21:06:38 <LJWatson> Zakim: rrsagent, make minutes
21:06:59 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
21:06:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-html-editors-minutes.html LJWatson
21:08:06 <LJWatson> Meeting: HTML editor's meting
21:08:13 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
21:08:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-html-editors-minutes.html LJWatson