See also: IRC log
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/team-html-editors/2016Aug/0005.html
arronei?
Travis?
<arronei> Travis and I are connecting now
http://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507
Travis: Ade says he isn't a big
fan of this integration
... it's important that we articulate what has been added to
the spec
... making it clear what we have done
... and then he has a list of thigns
... 1) removing the attribute from the deprecated list
Steve: was in the obsolete section of the spec
Travis: (very reasonnable)
... we added examples: unnecessary in Ade opiion but editorial
only
... added a reference, unnecessary but ok
<chaals> exactly what we added…
Travis: added some technical
details, which he is not certain on that one
... but we didn't import the technical content which is already
in the longdesc spec
... [that was Ade feedback]
... if we can outline these 4 points, he could clear the
air
... ie clearing the misunderstanding
Leonie: the issue is still open
but the conversation disgressed
... chaals believes it should be closed
... others would lime to keep it open
... Ade list is an accurate summary?
Chaals: not sure about the examples. attribute list yes. IDL attribute in.
Leonie: we have this concept of
applicable specs
... an extension is not HTML5 conforming, ie HTML5 conformance
doesn't depend on extensions
<chaals> [+1 to remove the IDL piece]
plh: we should remove the IDL
definition from HTML 5.1. it's already defined in the longdesc
spec
... unless we remove it, it will destroy our extension
story
... and it duplicates the definition, which isn't a good
thing
Leonie: what about the examples?
Steve: as long as the examples
are non-normatives, we should be ok
... the attribute shoudln't be listed in the attribute
list
... since it's defined through extensions
Leonie: so leave examples if
those are non-normative but remove the attribute from the
list
... ok?
Travis: I think it's appropriate
to keep the examples in
... so we remove longdesc from the tables but keep it in
examples since we want to show end to end scenario perhaps
Leonie: are we ok with that?
Chaals: so, assuming that we
collect a set of specs that impact HTML, that seems ok to
me
... if we have 14 specs, which some who have 0 meaning outside
of html, it should be clear that it's applicable to HTML
Leonie: if we have such list, that would be useful indeed
[discussion on where to put the "registry" of html elements and attributes]
plh: how about a group note and link it from the spec?
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.
[no pushback]
Leonie: Mozilla wasn't/isn't
happy with the lack of modularization
... we need to start looking seriously for 5.2
... and present a plan to the WG at TPAC
... Travis mega patch is probably related to this?
Travis: I suggested that one way
of modularizing the spec is to extract the pieces related to
scripting (setting up the env, execution, ...)
... pulling those into one document
... it's an incremental benefit, but the desire to continue to
do easy ports of WHATWG contributions in this area
... a lot of really good changes are happening from
Domenic
... and we'd like to take a lot of that content and adapt
it
... a success here would be to modularize and make it easier to
integrate
... ideally, we wouldn't have the duality here, but
modularization seems against their principle
... an other case: web workers and web messaging
... they felt by the way side that bringing back and update
Chaals: +1 to Travis. splitting
different from WHATWG will make hard for people working across
the 2
... make it harder for folks to keep it in sync
Travis: Ade is working on a plan
to align with WHATWG. could lead to a closer relations or could
get the situation worst
... I'm interested in finding a way to do the modularization
with the WHATWG as well
... perhaps we could start with html parsing
... we could make a module for that
... and it's straightforward
<chaals> [+1 for splitting out parsing]
Travis: like the DOM parsing spec
Leonie: we already spinned out aria btw
Travis: we should think about
modularization the parts of html that are least likely to
change
... would be easier to update in the future
... html parser has bug but not really an active part of the
spec
Leonie: can you provide a list of stable areas of the spec?
Travis: sure
<scribe> ACTION: Travis to provide a list of stable parts of the spec as potential candidates for modules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-html-editors-minutes.html#action01]
<LJWatson> `zakim, take up next item
[Thanks to Chaals for producing an implementation report]
Chaals: "scooped us from WHATWG"
isn't a useful comment
... so document your changes
... one thing which is not implemented
...: dir is only in Firefox
... and one thing that is only in Blink
... current proposal is to go to PR with warning for
those
... so that we can start focusing on html 5.2
... it's possible that the implementation report is shaky
<Travis> [+1 to Chaals' plan to push forward with current implementation report]
<chaals> PLH: dir is implemented in Firefox, but isn't an HTML feature
<chaals> … for promises rejection handlers, blink has partial implementation, and that's it.
<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.
chaals: we forgot some bits
related to multiple for input/range
... there is a PR to remove the rest
Leonie: so, we're good for a CfC?
Chaals: editors should add a note
Steve: I'll do it
... I'll do a PR for longdesc as well
Leonie: can we meet on August 16?
Steve: I'm away
Chaals: difficult for me
Leonie: August 9?
Steve: I'll be in a plane
[dates are flying]
August 30
Chaals: I can do 25 as well
August 25, time to be defined
https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/550
[plh raised the MSE issue 550]
<LJWatson> Zakim: rrsagent, make minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/without/with/ Succeeded: s/15/16/ Succeeded: s/ance/ane/ Succeeded: s/24 and// No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: plh Inferring Scribes: plh Present: LJWatson Steve WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! Regrets: Alex WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 02 Aug 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/02-html-editors-minutes.html People with action items: travis[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]