CMN Domenic wrote a broken algorithm, now they are wondering how they should test/fix it.
scribe: summary activation
behaviour is the algo. And I fixed out version by noting that
only the first summary child of a details element is
interactive.
... Anne this morning suggested doing something else in their
algorithm - the problem is if they define stuff differently for
no good reason except their editorial convention, that will
annoy people.
... On the other hand only the first summary *is* interactive,
so I'm more inclined to tell them that they should get that bit
right.
CMN: All summary elements that aren't the first child of a details are treated as non-interactive span elements.
SF: Like when they are outside a details element which is not uncommon.
CMN: Also think I missed in the rendering chapter the case of a second summary child of the same details element, or one that is a descendant not child.
LJW: Travis said he would hit his high priority stuff - let's do a quick triage on the rest…
AD: It's definitely useful to get the pointer.
AD: Nobody has implementation, the complaint is that implementation is inconsistent. Chicken and egg problem.
CMN: Is there a rational description of what should happen?
AD: One guy thinks so, but it's
for latin text and one person's opinion.
... we need a discussion on what is the correct behaviour -
Edge/Chrome are searching on something different to FF
... we would have to decide which it should be.
CMN: the decision to search on the label instead of the value seems like a no-brainer…
AD: right. Which only Firefox
does :S
... whatWG has some hand-wavy vagueness as a description of
what should be implemented
CMN: Yeah that looks pretty unclear. I would suggest you propose something clear.
AD: If we said search by value we
would have implementation, but that's not very smart - we
should be suggesting the Firefox behaviour.
... you really don't want to show the user a list of userIDs or
uuids or something that are the back-end values.
CMN: Let's say user agents should do what FF does, and mark it at risk…
AD: yep.
CMN: The rendering only deals
with the case where there is just one - if there are more in a
details element, or they are nested inside something and not a
direct child, then they get treated like span.
... but that needs some CSS fu to explain, so I don't want to
be assigned the issue.
LJW: I can take on that task...
[#764 is going to Léonie]
CMN: Arghhh!!! What a mess :(
Manual test for context menus: http://chaals.github.io/testcases/context-menu-manual.html
LJW: Fixing his script is high priority for him.
CMN: ping isn't high priority is it? When do we expect him back?
LJW: Next week.
✓&q=assignee%3Aadanilo%20is%3Aopen%20 Alex' issues
LJW: indexeddb is high priority
AD: marked for WD 7
... 778 needs tests, so that's the block.
... 769 maybe can do this afternoon. Not too difficult I
think.
... 735 CSP can be circumvented in HTML5 with <font>
CMN: seems like the risk isn't real so we could close it off…
AD: need to look.
... 589 contextmenu
CMN: I was looking at that, got tests, Firefox is the only real implementation at the moment. I suggest we document it according to what's there, mark at-risk and probably won't see it in 5.2
AD: Caniuse is wrong, not in
Chrome, but might get love because it's popular request
... 560 referrerPolicy might get done this afternoon.
... 553 multilang meta description just needs tests, not high
priority.
... 278 - focusin and focusout needs tests
... 263 activation for select is a mess, not
interoperable
... 236 have PR for that.
... 208 specify autocapitalise: punted…
... 198: stylesheet should use CSS-OM. needs tests, haven't
looked.
... 132: consider referencing WHATWG HTML for loading pages.
Can mark as WD7, might just close wontfix.
LJW: OK for labeling?
CMN/AD: think so
CMN: 841 with Xiaoqian. not
critical, should do for CR
... 819 is td in thead a header? Not critical, WD7 I hope,
needs testing
... 754: erratum for 5.1, I think we should get this out of the
way by doing it. high priority, but I'll make a new project to
assign it.
LJW: Do we need projects?
CMN: it's administrivia, I'm not
that fussed either way… I'll look.
... 538 allow IDN in input type=email. Would like to get it in
this milestone even though it will be at risk, to signal to
browsers and the world that they should start looking at
it.
... 485: change acceskey definition. tricky, editorial…
LJW: not high priority
CMN: agree
... 342 img with longdesc *should* be focusable
LJW: Should be opened against longdesc?
CMN: not sure. Maybe.
AD: agree.
CMN: 292 focusability of
scrollable regions. Would be at-risk if we get it in. Should be
done but basically relies on browsers fixing stuff.
... 290 make foucs() on body reflect reality. Should be done
for this milestone, not high priority but will try to get it
in. Otherwise next one.
... 274: fix menuitem. Working on that right now, expect it
this afternoon, but answer is we fix the spec, mark at risk,
and unless blink implements we expect it not to get past CR. It
is a popular dev request so might happen…
... 160 figure out which rel values are interoperable and
should be in the spec. Reasonable as a priority for CR.
... so do we mark it now even if it won't get done until
May?
AD: yes.
✓&q=assignee%3Aadanilo%20is%3Aopen%20 Sangwhan's issues
CMN: 821 add serviceworker links.
Will be priority when that's got interop, soon.
... 765 remove polyglot reference. Spec is dead, should just be
done. Not high priority…
LJW: No.
CMN: 756 link error building the spec. I think those should be high priority - question is if Sangwhan will get to it or should it be reassigned.
LJW: Sure.
CMN: 564 handling focus() in sequential navigation…
LJW: not high priority
CMN: 538 see above. chaals assigned as well.
439: relax ordering of table elements. Not
high priority
... 438: ditto
... 437 add allow-presentation to iframe sandbox flags
LJW: Looks like a priority
CMN: agree, and it's about
another spec working with HTML…
... 375 Vsync. Not high priority.
... 373: command section. Ditto but good for CR
LJW: It's a security issue…
CMN: I don't think there are
actual security implications - will look and if there are mark
High Priority.
... 314 default styling for q. Hmm. probably just normal
priority. Needs discussion as per discussion here
yesterday.
... 277 initial focus precedence…
LJW: good to get it done but normal priority
CMN: 269 inputmode - normal
... 253: DOCTYPE. seems normal priority
LJW: Yep.
✓&q=assignee%3Aarronei%20is%3Aopen%20 arronei's issues
CMN: they're all old bugs…
... 711 linking bug.
LJW: think that is worth marking, because linking problems are painful
CMN: agree.
... 413 support more date formats. not priority.
... 254 rendering of srcdoc in quirks mode, normal
... 235 invalidation of :target selector by DOM changes.
Normal
... 222 encoding changes for multipart form data.
... I would like this to get done instead of hanging around
forever.
... Normal priority
... 216 tighten up "compatibility caseless" comparisons.
Normal
... 215 include hooks for :read-only and :read-write.
LJW: old bug
CMN: should put a high priority
to look at this. Might be that we can just close it...
... 178 spec cleaning
LJW: would be good but not high priority.
CMN: 166 explaining focus after clipboard operations…
LJW: someone should just do this. Rysouke's comments should be incorporated. Don't think it is a big job
CMN: agree it looks pretty simple. I should be able to do it. reassign to me
✓&q=assignee%3Asiusin%20is%3Aopen%20 Xiaoqian's issues
LJW: 841 is editorial
CMN: should be done for CR. not
critical before then.
... 785 related to 375...
XW: might be at risk.
CMN: 426 integrate IntersectionObservers
XW: to do before CR, might be at risk.
CMN: 300 scrolling element into view.
XW: can I assign it to someone else?
CMN: Have a look, feel free to
assign to Travis
... 291 legacy Ruby
XW: will be done before CR
CMN: We already talked about this
on tuesday - see minutes.
... 262 XSS problem. That suggests it is a high priority.
XW: 234 doesn't need changes, but should have a test for it.
CMN: normal priority then.
... 227 media-type registration
XW: This is hard. Closed it
yesterday but got objections so re-open it today but don't want
this to be up to software vendors, should be
standardised.
... he wants a name for the media type in windows/mac format to
be part of the standard.
... editorial, not high priority.
SF: 830 add sectioning content to
body. Needs to go in context of some other changes, normal
priority
... put wd7 milestone.
... 807 update button definition is done I think.
... 806 doc outline - also in the mix with 830.
... 761 multiple main elements? seems uncontroversial, normal
priority
... 741 is a mega-bug, ongoing work.
... 736 should be done, make it high priority
... 583 cell header algortihms. Ping back to guy who raised it,
he offered to draft changes, still waiting. Normal
CMN: 561 is meant to be for Léonie, in any case I don't think it is high priority
SF: 558 not high priority
... 488 is easy, should be done in milestone as normal
... 476 Define or remove use of term "plain unicode string".
can't find any definition, I can't make a definition… reassign
please.
... 474 datetime-local needs a health warning. That just needs
to be done. flag it so I do.
... 470 <details> default label should be localised -
waiting for i18n to review.
... commit is in the spec.
... Will ping @r12a to see if we can close.
... 456 vertical range inputs.
CMN: Not high priority, as far as I can tell.
SF: No.
... 293 label should only get :hover/:focus if it is
interactive. Don't know, I'll look.
... 104 Table loses extra cells in thead. related to how td
acts in thead… I'll change the example.
... normal priority
LJW: 764 working on now, the other two are not high priority
CMN: 822 link section rewriting
is apparently waiting on @sideshowbarker
... 780 match location.replace to reality is waiting on
implementation
... 773 update dialog focusing.
SF: normal
CMN: 766 standardise
<template> variables. has some traction in browsers, but
waiting on implementation I believe.
... 751 drop bidi restrictions.
... get it done normal priority.
... 748 xml:base not for XHTML - normal priority
... 545 clean up base tag, waiting on implementation, not a
priority
... 543 structured clone feature request, normal priority
... 535 make click events into pointer events, not
priority.
... 492 where do server-side image maps start, normal
priority
... 475 editorial - travis has a proposal, ping @wolonetz
again?
... 428 media elements that delay load event
... normal priority, get it done.
... 378 fix linking in the spec. Suggest this is high
priority.
SF: yeah.
CMN: 322 img elements ignore http
status. Normal priority
... 300 define steps for scrolling element into view. (from
Xiaoqian) normal priority
... 259 integrate public identifiers.waiting on implementation,
normal priority
... 255 can HTML mail get no-quirks without DOCTYPE.
normal
... 253 DOCTYPE explanations, normal priority
... 226 bidi-isolate elements with lang and no dir attributes.
normal
... 225 feature request, normal priority
... 214 <?xml-stylesheet?> processing model. normal
priority
... 194 input type=date change events. normal priority
... 163 synch events are problematic
LJW: Not high priority
CMN: fair enough.
... 64 dropzone. been around for a long time… get it done in
milestones, normal priority
... 44 tabindex in shadows, normal priority.
... spread of editors with issues is 7 - 16 across the next two
milestones. I'm not proposing a lot of tweaking to that, if
people aren't going to get their milestones done please speak
up.
... next one is in four weeks, then one last one or you missed
5.2
LJW: Do we need to put exit criteria to WG?
CMN: yes, and they should be the
same as we had before.
... and we need to mark stuff at risk if it's not implemented.
Should put that to the WG sooner, since there are probably
legacy things in there that are still not implemented.
XW: So there are two more milestones then we freeze for CR.
CMN: milestone tomorrow, another
for late April, then the WD at the beginning of June gets
branched to make a CfC for CR - then we just need stuff marked
at risk and to test the new stuff.
... in theory we shouldn't have anything in the draft that is
new, and not tested, and if its not interoperable it should be
marked at-risk.
Thank you everyone. Time to get working.
And in particular thank you to Q42 for hosting us.
[Adjourn]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/198/… 198/ Succeeded: s/Closed it/Closed it yesterday but got objections so re-open it today/ Present: Léonie Steve Alex Chaals Xiaoqian No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: chaals Inferring Scribes: chaals WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/03/30-html-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]