HTML F2F day 3

30 Mar 2017


Léonie, Steve, Alex, Chaals, Xiaoqian



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.

agenda bashing

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.

datalist issue 236

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.

Summary elements still

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]

menu / menuitem

CMN: Arghhh!!! What a mess :(

Manual test for context menus: http://chaals.github.io/testcases/context-menu-manual.html

issue triage

Adrian's issues.

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.

Steve's issues

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

Léonie's issues

LJW: 764 working on now, the other two are not high priority

Travis' issues

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.


Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/03/30 15:15:55 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]