<Scott_O> scribeNick: tink

<inserted> scribe: Léonie

Implementation report

LW: Thanks to Terence and Scott for completing.
... Sangwhan?

TE: Nothing from Sangwhan yet.

SOH: My name is next to one but it links to the wrong issue.

LW: Need to look in the changelog.

TE: It's wrong in the changelog.

LW: Scott, can you fix the changelog, then update the implementation report?

TE: Just updating the implementation report now.

Wide review

<chaals> scribe: chaals

LJW: Chaals talked to privacy folks, hope for some review, i18n mostly happy but looking at the ruby issues (they don't want to lose bits), waiting on security review may take a bit past the deadline so we could work on implementation report and more editorial updates.

SW: [changleog mumble]
... TAG - probably won't address anything in the 5.3 review, but we are trying to get to HTML as a whole. Which is a big long job - at least half a year is our schedule.
... Will also look at things that we would like to remove, so some issues will come up with interop. But don't hold your breath. So no formal 5.3 review - on a quick look there wasn't much to be concerned about in terms of delta from 5.2. I'll bring it up in teh TAG call if you like

LJW: A response saying "nothing from the TAG" would be helpful.

SW: OK. Note that the TAG likes to review small features rather than a whole spec.

F2F agenda

Face to face

LJW: On the agenda we should expect something on what the path is for 5.3 and onward...
... any other concrete suggestions?

SW: Would like to look at things that haven't been looked at for a long time.

CMN: Removing things like ISMAP

LJW: Discussion of TAGs overall review sounds good.

<sangwhan> TAG HTML reviews: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+html+general++review

SW: If you have anything around images/media/forms/ruby, ping me

LJW: Are there criteria you are using that we can see?

SW: Goal is to look at the architecture and see if there are improvements to make in APIs, in interop, or where we could streamline the platform. E.g. some stuff in forms is not very good - you cannot style them so people do weird other stuff which is not helpful.

github repo where the HTML 5.3 implementation report lives...

[adjourn]

i/agendum 1. ¨Implementation/scribe: Léonie/

s|i/agendum 1. Ïmplementation/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/for Sangwhan/from Sangwhan yet/
Succeeded: s/i'm having trouble getting in too/scribeNick: tink/
FAILED: i/agendum 1. Ïmplementation/scribe: Léonie
Succeeded: s/is where the HTML/github repo where the HTML/
Succeeded: s/Ïmple/¨Imple/
FAILED: s|i/agendum 1. Ïmplementation/scribe: Léonie/||
Succeeded: i/agendum 1. "Implementation/scribe: Léonie
Present: Sangwhan Terence Chaals Scott Léonie
Regrets: Bruce Xiaoqian
Found ScribeNick: tink
Found Scribe: Léonie
Found Scribe: chaals
Inferring ScribeNick: chaals
Scribes: Léonie, chaals
ScribeNicks: tink, chaals

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.)