HTML

HTML 5.1 update

<CMN> AFAIK, Léonie has the update pretty much ready to go, which means we need to put it to the WG, and then request publication.
… We did it by directly editing the source code because that was much easier than trying to rebuild the 5.1 branch. That seems like a reasonable approach - if we have massive errata, we have even bigger problems.
She asks if we should tag errata separately from "stuff in Github".
... my alternative is to make a tag for specific errata if we need them

Ade: we are unlikely to need to track errata for things other than the current version. so tag in GH seems like the right answer.

CMN: My other proposal is to obsolete old HTML specs...

Travis: Sounds fair. I know some people who can help.
... is 5.1 building cleanly again?

CMN: I don't know.

CMN: We didn't see a need to try. This *is* a potential issue for translators, and we have an open issue, my approach would be branch the current version and run the current building at any given time.

Ade: Yes

HTML 5.2 progress

CMN: last I looked we had 6 open PRs, a bunch of open issues.

Travis: Been busy, but hoping to get High Priority items done this week.

CMN: We need to tighten up the Pull Request review process.
... timeline has us closing off 5.2 at the end of the month. To have some ability to make sensible decisions, it is important to get reasonably accurate info about what people are going to actually get done.

TL: I have 28 issues, 15 for CR draft... likely more than I can get done.

CMN: You know better than me what you can do - please go through the issues and set some reasonable expectation.

TL: Can do that. Looking at Arron's too, he has 8.
... srcdoc and quirks mode probably won't get done.
... His high priority item is building HTML 5.1 - we can drop that?

CMN: Yeah, that's not cost-free but if we can get translators to build against the current master branch instead we might be OK

TL: Will leave a note in #756

at risk items

CMN: there's an issue open to identify at-risk items.
... the key problem here is old stuff that got in before we started work, and isn't actually implemented. It would be helpful to ask people who can identify things that don't work.

TL: Appcache - should we have it properly in the obsolete section?

CMN: It *should* all be documented in the obsolete section...

Implementation report and testing

CMN: I hope the editors come up with an implementation report during CR

TL: Should be feasible based on 5.1-5.2 changes history

CMN: We have some WPT tests, some linked tests in individual changes, but I think it is fairly straightforward given that we've kept changelogs
... I have a real hope that our improved procedures will make it pretty straightforward task.

schedule

CMN: CR draft - 2 June, CfC to request CR, request CR mid-June, publish June 20-ish
... almost parallel CfC for FPWD of 5.3.

CR ending late August, implementation report and transition request with CfC end Aug / start Sept,

scribe: PR early September, Rec some time end of October. All things working as planned…

<adrianba> TPAC 6-10 November 2017

TL: TPAC November 6-10

CMN: We should think about Custom Elements for 5.3
... I would rather take out parsing as a clean module and fold in custom elements, think that would be a better approach to modularisation in practice. But anyway, we need to think about it and talk to the WG.

[adjourned]