LW: We're still at 14%.
... FPWD editing deadline is Friday, and it would be good to
have some issues fixed by then.
SF: Will do it this week.
SF: Lots of discussion on the issue.
LW: Can we help?
SF: No, thanks.
... The question is whether the body element is itself a
section.
... Will do this week also.
PA: Trying to make a better
test.
... I have an idea on the text, but want to check to be
sure.
... Seems there is standardisation around the same thing.
... In the Chromium code base they reference UI Events.
... Where focus event order, seem to try to specify the event
order.
... Doesn't seem to match reality though.
LW: Travis is one of the UI Events editors, we can ping him on this issue.
PA: He has commented previously, but in 2016.
LW: Is it possible to get this resolved this week?
PA: Not sure.
LW: Can you post your proposed spec text somewhere this week?
PA: Before talking with Travis?
LW: Sure, he can look at the proposed changes and hopefully comment.
<chaals> [I pushed autocapitalize off the milestone. I think we will get it, but not this week. And I have a hard time testing for lack of the right devices]
PA: Haven't made progress on
this.
... It relates to quirks mode in iframes.
... It seems WebKit has support for this behaviour, and also
Firefox.
... Not sure, so needs tests.
LW: Ok, sounds good.
PA: Discussion in the
WHATWG.
... Need to talk to Steve about this one.
SF: This is implementable.
... The algorithm needs updating.
LW: Is this to reflect reality.
SF: No implementations.
... Someone at Chrome suggested having a flag.
LW: Ok, suggest we make this proposed behavour change in the spec, but mark it as risk.
<chaals> [+1 to LJW]
LW: Then talk to the browser vendors about making the change.
SD: Sent an email with
details.
... The behaviour seems clear.
... The problem is that in the spec it has an undersireable
example, and Firefox used this in its implementation.
... Will remove the example.
... Will do it this week.
LW: Just to check, it's just removing the example?
SD: I might make a few changes to
the wording for clarity.
... Otherwise I think the spec is clear.
TE: I now have all the
details.
... Will tackle this after my other issues.
<sangwhan> Link in agenda seems to have a typo: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/1077
TE: Just need to get the wording right, don't think it's a huge technical change.
zakmin, take up item 7
LW: Lots of discussion.
TE: Wrote up a first
proposal.
... May be delayed because of i18n discussions.
... Not all alphabets/languages have capital letters.
<chaals> [i18n isn't the actual delay here, it is testing and figuring out the nasty corners and how users work with it that is the reason for delay]
TE: Apple already has
documentation on this, and it's already supported in other
browsers.
... So would rather put a first draft into the spec, then
refine it.
... Documenting reality, including the corner cases seems like
a good approach to me.
<chaals> [I am happy to get a first draft into the spec by merging what we have, and continue to fix, if people prefer to go that way]
LW: Seems like a good approach to
me.
... Ok, let's do it that way.
<chaals> [OK, works for me, and yeah endless discussion without getting it in for review isn't great]
<sangwhan> Considering the actual autocapitalize behavior is implemented by the IMEs, think keeping the spec level behavior at a bare minimum might be enough.
XW: Have raised a PR.
... There is a problem with the Travis build though.
<sangwhan> xiaoqian_: what is the build problem?
SM: What's the build problem?
XW: Seems to be to do with referencing.
LW: PLH thought he'd fixed the
referencing problem.
... It didn't work though.
XW: Will take a look today.
<sangwhan> Seems like a Shepherd problem from a first glance
XW: There is another issue we need to resolve before we can fix #778, will raise an issue today.
XW: It's in Firefox and we have
intent to ship in Chrome.
... Will send a PR soon.
LW: This week?
XW: Yes.
LW: Is Sangwhan on the call?
<sangwhan> I've commented on the issue. I'll get to it after I unblock mike's work.
<sangwhan> I'm on IRC.
LW: Thanks Sangwhan. Any idea on an ETA?
<sangwhan> I'd say a week or two after the workers part is done. Probably not for until mid December, since I have to figure out how to make it assemble correctly when I fold it back in.
LW: We've just discovered that the diff tool is broken.
XW: Discussed with the
team.
... We want more than a diff tool.
... To minimise the differences between the two specs.
LW: We discussed a tool to monitor commets and make PRs.
XW: Do we want auto-merge.
<sangwhan> I should note that some parts of w3c/html doesn't have the history of why this particular diff made it in in the first place after the bikeshed migration.
LW: No, we want editors to be able to approve.
PA: Want to understand
Xiaoqian...
... We want some kind of metadata to say what we want to do
with that section?
XW: Yes, I think so.
PA: ack pa
<sangwhan> I'm curious who will sit down and do this work..
LW: Right now we need to minimise
the differences.
... And we don't have any tools available anymore.
SD: I took a look a tpossible exiting options.
<shwetank> https://github.com/gitwatch/gitwatch
SD: Found one possibility, though
there are not many.
... We use Bikeshed and the WHATWG doesn't. This makes things
complicated.
<sangwhan> The format is completely different, not sure if that will work.
<sangwhan> The semantic hints on both sides are different as well, for unknown reasons.
LW: Is this something W3C should
put your time on?
... It seems important across the W3C.
XW: Not sure.
LW: Shwetank is there an obvious next step?
SD: I need to try and figure out the mapping.
LW: Is it worth looking under the
hood of the old diff tool?
... It's on Github.
SF: Have you filed an issue against the diff tool?
LW: will do, but it seems to be a dormant project.
SD: First part is to get a
diff.
... We need to be mindful of past differences.
... Second we need to figure out what next.
... I'll keep exploring.
<sangwhan> The author seems to be busy with his day job work, I haven't seen him in a W3C event since Sapporo.
<sangwhan> Might have even switched jobs, I can ask around.
TE: Turns out it's one where none
of the entitires are escpaed.
... There is a PR for approval.
SD: Received a message from one
of the editors of the JavaScript standard.
... They'd like a liaison with the W3C.
... Perhaps within the TAG?
... Or within HTML?
<sangwhan> TAG doesn't deal with TC39 at the moment, but I can ask.
XW: We should talk to PLH about this.
<sangwhan> Domenic is the best candidate that comes to mind about this.
LW: Will add it to the WebPlat
team meeting later today.
... Thoughts on whether having that liaison within the HTML
team would be helpful to us?
SD: Yes, I think it would.
... But they may prefer someone from the TAG.
... But I think perhaps more than one person might be a good
approach.
LW: Sangwhan, thoughts?
<shwetank> I mentioned about Sanghwan and said I will let him know what you (sanghwan) things.
<shwetank> *thinks
<sangwhan> I'll take a look if shwetank can forward me a pointer to look at
<sangwhan> I'll see if we can squeeze it into the TAG call agenda tomorrow.
<sangwhan> Thanks all, sorry for only being pseudo-present.
<edent> @chaals. Yup. Have to go by 1015.
<scribe> scribe: Léonie
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/that/autocapitalize/ Succeeded: s/ITC/IRC/ Succeeded: s/i.e. I expect to remove the "not ready" label later today...// Succeeded: s/Can anyone else review it?// Succeeded: s/I think it's probably OK to merge the PR now, but I will check it a bit more.// Present: Léonie Patricia Shwetank Steve Terence Xiaoqian chaals Sangwhan Regrets: Bruce No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: tink_ Found Scribe: Léonie 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 People with action items: 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]