<tink> Meeting WebPlat WG meeting

<scribe> scribe: marcosc

Draft WebApps charter

<scribe> scribeNick: marcosc

<tink> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/webapps-2019.html

agendum 1. "Draft WebApps charter" taken up [from tink]

tink: do you have an update, Yves.

Yves: I'm hoping to talk to PLH.

tink: I don't see the point of timing the new webapps charter with the W3C agreement as they are separate now

Yves: the plan was to send them out with the HTML agreement

<Yves> along with i18n

marcosc: was waiting oh PLH to respond to some queries
... given that we now have more defined scope. the question I had for PLH was if we need to explicitly list the WICG specs that we want to adopt? And tink has proposed that we could list them

CFC for WICG specs

Yves: we could list them, the we could use the AC vote as agreement for their inclusion without needing to recharter

tink: do we know which specs to include yet?

marcosc: given the question above, we can include as many as we want

tink: there was keyboard board lock...

<tink> https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/122

<tink> https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/105

marcosc: web share, web target, badging...

tink: we discussed keyboard lock, keyboard map two years ago. It's not clear which implementers are interested
... however, we don't have any record of adopting them
... the keyboard ones were discussed... but there was not agreement.

Yves: the keyboard map was reviewed by the TAG
... so, we could include they list of things that are implemented - and see if there is interest during the AC review

tink: I'll send the list to our list

ExecCommand

<tink> https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/184#issuecomment-437836597

<scribe> ACTION: Leonie to send list of WICG specs to our chairs list

agendum 3. "ExecCommand" taken up [from tink]

tink: I can understand marcosc moving it to the WIGC. I'm not sure we gain a lot from moving it.

marcosc: so, right now it's unofficial and has no chance of progressing beyond that. If we were to move it to the WICG, we wouldn't need to depend on such a small community and it could become more developer driven. It could also become as proper community report, rather than unofficial document.
... and then it can be maintained by the community

tink: is there evidence that we would get developer uptake in the WICG?

marcosc: in as far as other specs get developer participation

tink: perhaps we could put it to the working group

marcosc: do we have a means to conduct a poll?

tink: we can run a poll on github
... I'll get a CFC out about it today

chaals, do you recall what the deal was with that life cycle spec from the WICG?

https://github.com/WICG/page-lifecycle

CFC for WICG specs

<tink> List of potential WICG specs...

tink: the provisional list is...

<tink> Keyboard Lock

<tink> Keyboard Map

<tink> Cookie Store

<tink> Web Locks API

<tink> Writable Files

<tink> Web Share

<tink> Web Share Target

<tink> Badging

<tink> Lifecycle

<chaals> https://wicg.github.io/keyboard-map

marcoscaceres

<tink> Meeting: WebPlat WG meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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/lock/map/
Succeeded: s/tink: I don't see the point of connecting the new webapps charter to the new yet to be named group as they are separate now/tink: I don't see the point of timing the new webapps charter with  the W3C agreement as they are separate now/
Succeeded: s/rresagent, make minutes//
Present: Léonie (tink) Yves Fuqiao Marcos Chaals
Regrets: Xiaoqian
Found Scribe: marcosc
Inferring ScribeNick: marcosc
Found ScribeNick: marcosc

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: leonie

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)