<chaals> More issues: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues?q=is%3Aissue+milestone%3A"HTML5.3+WD4"+is%3Aopen
SM: The TAG is not going to review HTML5.3
... Custom Elements is being tracked in #244 on the TAG repo
... The TAG is doing a wide review of the whole of HTML.
... If WebPlat wants #244 to be escalated, you should raise it with the TAG chairs.
... On HTML5.3, we're not happy with @ping.
CMN: It would be good to get a statement to that effect from the TAG then.
... Privacy also has concerns.
SM: @ping is not well designed I think.
... Also there is @allowusermedia is a concern.
... There is something called Permission Delegation in development.
XW: I looked at that, and it doesn't seem that different.
SM: Yes, but @allowusermedia is very specific, we can't keep adding things.
XW: But Permission Delegation isn't ready.
SM: No, so this is something we'd want to do in the future.
CMN: How many implementations does @allowusermedia have?
XW: One.
CMN: It should be marked at risk.
... There are two things I'd like the TAG to look at.
... #1337
... Should you be able to put any custom attribute into a Custom Element?
... The argument for is that it's useful for attribute short names.
... The argument against is that there is no way of knowing which attributes are out there.
... The question is whether we should sacrifice extensibility for author convenience?
... It dould be good for the TAG to look into this.
SM: Please add this to the HTML5.3 wide review request issue on the TAG repo.
CMN: The other is #1424 on the ruby elements.
SW: Don't think the TAG has a consensus position on this.
XW: #248 on the TAG repo relates to this.
SM: I've had conversations about this.
... There are different opinions on where it should be.
... I'd like it to be better.
CMN: I'll raise this too.
LW: So what is the proposed HTML review the TAG is doing?
SM: The TAG has never reviewed it, and so that's what we're doing.
LW: What is the prupose of the review?
SM: On our tracker there is a list of things we look for.
... How everything connects together, what is still needed, what is obsolete, etc.
XW: Is there a timeline?
SM: No, no timeline.
... We're under-staffed.
... One point to mention is that the WHATWG spec is missing some of the media features that are in the W3C space.
CMN: Examples?
SM: Like EME.
CMN: That's a separate extension.
SM: Why?
CMN: There was a belief that the HTML spec should be modularised.
... It didn't really work out as a complete success - there are some things that it helps and some costs.
SM: I don't think media should be among them.
LW: I think EME was separated in order to enable HTML5 get to Rec.
SF: Ask the WHATWG to incorporate EME?
SM: It's not just EME, there is also Media Loading etc.
CMN: Suggest raising an issue.
CMN: We have things in the report that no-one has looked at.
... Bruce?
SM: Mine are not there.
<chaals> Implementation report
LW: The report itself needs updating because we've made more commits since I created the stub.
<chaals> Implementation report source
CMN: Please look at your changes, make sure they are in the report if they are substantive, and that the test results are provided with links to the tests.
<xiaoqian> https://wpt.fyi/results/
CMN: Programmer3000 deleted their account after it was blocked, so we've lost their issues.
SM: Is that a bad thing?
CMN: I think so.
... They were often abusive, but their issues were sometimes useful.
BL: I have lots in my emails.
LW: That's a very time consuming thing to do, is it really worth it?
CMN: Yes, I think so.
BL: I can do this.
LW: As we go through issues do we plan to add them to milestones?
CMN: Good question.
... We should get a WD update out next week.
... Then set another WD milestone.
LW: If we move the current milestone deadline to Friday, the WD next week will include al we do here this week.
CMN: I'll do that, and create a new WD milestone for the end of July.
<chaals> current milestone (due Friday)
CMN: If you have an assigned issue and can get it done this week, that would be good.
... There are also issues that are unassigned, all from Programmer3000
... #1338, #1344, and #1363
... Will bump the to the next milestone.
BL: WFM
... Any others we should bump?
<bruce> (WiFi fun ensues after scribe was kicking off)
BL: Of those that are assigned, how confident is everyone that they'll be done?
SOH: 4 of mine have PRs.
... I'll work more on the Custom Elements examples this week.
... Will start on #1405
... Also #1392
... So I think I can make progress this week.
... I've also been looking at #300, which has been bumped to the When It's ready milestone.
XW: #1299 we can take the changes from the WHATWG.
... #1384 and #1382 I can do this week.
CMN: #1424 to be discussed on Thursday with the I18n people.
... #1423 needs implementations.
... Think it can be closed because there are no implementations.
... thead should allow you to keep the header in place whilst you scroll around.
... Actually, I'll assign it to When It's Ready.
LW: We should open a corresponding issue on the WHATWG.
... #1229 is to go through the IDL and compare it to the WHATWG spec.
... Bruce, could you take this one?
BL: Ok...
<chaals2> /join chaals
CMN: #1389 I'll get done.
... That's all the open issues in the current milestone.
<chaals> i18n issues
LW: All open issues, or just those from wide review?
CMN: ... All of them.
... #1424 we've dealt with ^^
... #1292 allow span in the title element
... Would be good, but you can't change title, so it's unlikely to happen.
... It's marked "When It's ready, but think we should assume that won't happen.
LW@ Proposal to close?
CMN: Not sure.
SF: If we keep it open it gives false hope.
CMN: Yes.
... Think tracking real issues is a good thing to do.
LW: Not sure this is the way to track such things.
SF: Could close it and use a specific label.
CMN: So suggest a label?
LW: "good idea", "unlikely"?
CMN: Will add "if only".
JVA: What makes this one hard to solve?
BL: The title element is so widely implemented and supported, changing it is too much to ask.
SF: The way the browser parses it would need to change.
CMN: Ok, labelled "if only" and closed.
XW: We should keep it open.
CMN: There is no point in keeping it open, but we just want to have a way of recalling it later.
XW: But if it's closed it won't happen.
CMN: We don't expect anything to happen.
SM: It doesn't have to happen inside the title element.
... Quick test suggests it's just treated as text.
CMN: I know, I don't think we cansolve the problem, do you?
SM: No.
XW: We should keep it open.
LW: I disagree.
CMN: Open issues are the things we intend to do.
XW: What if someone raises the same issue again?
LW: We'd point them to the closed issue, like we would in any other situation.
SM: Open it in WICG?
CMN: There is no workable proposal though.
SM: True, but there is a use case.
CMN: Proposal: Close the issue?
+1
CMN: Show of hands +5 and -1.
SM: We might want some guidelines around this.
XW: Maybe I18n can track?
CMN: They'll get a notification when we close it.
... #1039 assigned to Xiaoqian.
... Terence has a PR against this.
... We merged it.
XW: So why is it assigned to me?
CMN: It's a wide review issue.
... We should look at it again.
LW: If Terence addressed the original issue, it makes sense to assign this to him now.
cCMN: #1011
XW: Can do that for the next milestone.?
CMN: #970 will assign to myself.
... To improve definition of string using content from the Charmod spec.
... #820 how should RTL ables be processed.
... This is "When It's Ready" bcause implementations are generally borked.
... Would be good to take it up but not sure we should right now.
... #269 assigned to Sangwhan.
SM: We could potentially put it back.
... If someone else wants to take it, I'm ok with that.
SOH: In the issue Firefox has it in development, others mixed signals.
JVA: Looks like Firefox implemented it about three months ago.
CMN: Sangwhan can you test for the next milestone?
SM: I need a mobile to test with.
... But yes, I think so.
CMN: #226 assigned to Bruce.
BL: Can do it for the next milestone.
CMN: I'll also talk to I18n about it.
... That's the last of the i18n issues.
CMN: #1458 more granularity for allowusermedia
LW: It's a feature request.
<tink> CMN: #1457
LJW: in #1457 there is privacy information in the spec referred to, we should point more clerly to it. I agree and assign it to me.
CMN: #1456 ping attribute
LJW: We should think about taking it out again
JVA: Or disable it. That is really hard today
LJW: posted an issue in whatwg about this - they were not inclined to change anything
SOH: whatwg/3718 issue
CMN: The TAG apparently has something to say on this and I will be aking them to say it clearly.
<tink> ... The ping attribute is better for privacy than other possibilities.
JVA: I can see JS crafting a URL and sending that.
CMN: Right, and that is why ping is in principle an improvement, but you can't realise the value in curent shipping browsers
SM: Need to talk through this more with TAG, but think the permission model is odd.
SM: Disabling autoplay on untrused websites is happening in Chrome.
... We could add a note to the spec to suggest it be disabled by default.
CMN: Yes.
... #1311 is similar.
... Suggestion is to note the possibility of the attack.
SM: I'm not sure about #1311
CMN: It's been done.
SM: Is it a concern for the spec?
CMN: I think it's worth noting the mitigations.
... I'll take #1311 and #1312
SOH: Should we index anything with a privacy concern under 1.8?
CMN: Yes, I think so.
SOH: I'm happy to do that indexing exercise.
LW: Worth opening an issue.
SOH: On it.
CMN: #952 update clickjacking guidance.
... assigned to Sangwhan.
SM: We need Mike West's input on this one.
CMN: Anyone prepared to write a draft we can ask Mike to review and comment on?
... Ok, I'll take it.
... #543 add origin aware transferrables.
SM: This feature is needed, just not sure it's an HTML thing.
XW: Related to Feature Policy?
SM: Yes, could be.
... Not sure which WG though.
... It's lower than HTML.
... Would be a good WHATWG collaboration issue?
LW: Should we open a cross-issue?
CMN: Check first there isn't one.
... Not finding one.
<chaals> open issues
chaals: #1463
Scott_O: I can take it
tink: happy to join the discussion
chaals: #1461
... assigned it to edent
tink: he shall be available in the next few weeks
chaals: #1447
Scott_O: I can give it a try
chaals: #1445
... I can do this one
... #1431
... close it because no one is going to implement it
... #1429 & #1430
... substantive
... need tests
... going to the WD5 milestone
tink: I can try #1429, not sure can do before WD5
chaals: #1425
Scott_O: not sure if we want this...
chaals: assign to tink
... #1355
... about which numbers are available or not
... assign to edent
... #1340
... about the unknown dates, unknown months, ... , when the system format doesn't provide
... when it's ready
... #1336
... about RDFA, I can take this, next milestone
... #1333
... should go to the WICG
... #1319
... next milestone
... #1299 & #1298
sangwhan: 1299 is an example of 1298
chaals: we should do it, people wants this
... #1289
... we should do it when ready
... #1247
... a wish on various elements need attention
... #1222
... not implemented
sangwhan: it seems we should put it in
chaals: #1193 & #1185
... both general things how the spec is built, low priority
sangwhan: what's the problem with the syntax?
chaals: it breaks things...
... a noted issue in pygments
... #1156
... move to incubation
sangwhan: there is a CSS drafts working on this
... already open on CSS https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2013
RESOLUTION: close #1156
RESOLUTION: Close #1156
<tink> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/1156
chaals: #1125
... things like this will be helpful
tink: you will have to redefine placeholder
chaals: this should be done in incubation
Scott_O: they misuse the term placeholder
chaals2: #1086
xw: it's waiting for the feature policy spec
chaals2: #1075
... I dont think we should do it, DOM is a better place for Workers
sangwhan: not really a DOM thing
chaals2: update the worker spec as it is
tink: send another CfC to the WG
RESPLUTION: run a new CfC to the WG about Workers
sangwhan: I don't think it has a strong binding to HTML
chaals2: #980
... editorial
Scott_O: let's put it for July and I can try to do it
chaals2: #978
... it seems we should do it
... #975
... duplicate with #1355
... #957
... currently a hard one
... will fix it when it's ready
... #938
... we found a bunch of issues from Bugzilla last year that hadn't been imported
... this is one of them
... #935
... #933
... people may want to mute the microphone without muting the video
sangwhan: there are some platform features that can do it
... what's the use case?
Scott_O: there are two sessions about microphone, none about this issue
chaals2: #910
RESOLUTION: close #910
chaals2: #907
... should the name attribute allow multiple names on meta
... need tests
... low priority
... #898
Scott_O: I can try
chaals2: #868
... should we put something about focus in the rendering section
... #375
sangwhan: would prefer to have pull requests...
chaals2: would be reasonable to ask for PR
... #373
... most of these have been taken out
... editorial
... #293
... when you have an inactive element, you should not be able to hover it
... assign to bruce
sangwhan: #292
... this can be part of the WICG spatial navigation TF
... operate on the render tree instead of the DOM tree