See also: IRC log
<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
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
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...
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.
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]