14:06:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #interop
14:06:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/14-interop-irc
14:06:03 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #interop
14:10:46 <dom> Meeting: Interop 2023  - TPAC 2022 breakout
14:10:48 <dom> Chair: _Philip_Jägenstedt, Chris_Harrelson
14:10:50 <dom> Agenda:  https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/82be90b0-7ab5-4261-b38f-5af120c3a479#agenda
14:10:52 <dom> RRSAgent, make log public
14:10:54 <dom> RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight
14:17:26 <dom> RRSAgent, stay
14:17:28 <dom> Zakim, stay
14:17:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'stay', dom
15:14:58 <dom> dom has joined #interop
16:12:35 <dom> agenda+ breakout
17:36:19 <rakuco> rakuco has joined #interop
17:59:43 <dholbert> dholbert has joined #interop
18:08:55 <mustaq_> mustaq_ has joined #interop
18:11:55 <rachelandrew> rachelandrew has joined #interop
18:14:35 <rego_> rego_ has joined #interop
18:15:49 <dom> dom has joined #interop
18:16:00 <dom> RRSAgent, pointer?
18:16:00 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2022/09/14-interop-irc#T18-16-00
18:16:13 <flackr> flackr has joined #interop
18:16:30 <jgraham> jgraham has joined #interop
18:17:30 <jgraham> Meeting: Interop 2023
18:17:45 <astearns> astearns has joined #interop
18:17:55 <jgraham> ScribeNick: jgraham
18:18:06 <jgraham> RRSAgent: make minutes
18:18:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/14-interop-minutes.html jgraham
18:18:11 <jgraham> RRSAgent: make logs public
18:18:48 <jgraham> foolip: <presentation> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1f3Z7KA1ztauPxUH4HV5vr8Qt4EC1q2kAe2DTnW2rA00/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-V0dL1h_XfEp1-NX06xCXpg
18:18:59 <kadirtopal_> kadirtopal_ has joined #interop
18:19:33 <kadirtopal> kadirtopal has joined #interop
18:19:34 <jgraham> foolip: Interop 2023 will be formed in the image of interop 2022
18:20:30 <jgraham> foolip: Evidence of web developer senitment (e.g. via surveys) is used as input. Also uage e.g. from use counters. Bugs filed on browsers also indicate that an area's worth looking at.
18:20:35 <tantek> tantek has joined #interop
18:20:37 <tantek> present+
18:20:50 <dom> [slide 3]
18:21:09 <jgraham> foolip: Each participant can decide what's important to them, and then we require consensus i.e. non-zero support and no objections
18:21:15 <flackr> present+
18:21:25 <jgraham> foolip: State of CSS was valuable input in 2022 and is running again soon
18:21:29 <jgraham> present+
18:21:48 <dom> present+
18:22:04 <dom> i|[slide 3]|Slideset: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2022Sep/att-0005/Interop_2023_TPAC_breakout.pdf
18:22:12 <dom> [slide 4]
18:22:12 <dom> [slide 5]
18:22:25 <dom> [slide 6]
18:22:28 <dom> [slide 7]
18:22:39 <dom> [slide 8]
18:22:46 <jgraham> foolip: Focus area from 2022 summary. Subgrid. New viewport units. Color spaces & functions. And others.
18:22:57 <dom> [slide 10]
18:23:02 <jgraham> foolip: Can see current scores for those.
18:23:06 <dom> [slide 11]
18:25:12 <dom> |slide 12]
18:25:16 <jgraham> foolip: 2023 will follow a similar shape. We have a detailed timeline. Proposals open tomorrow. Onemonth period for submitting proposals. Expect most to come from people in the standards space. But also open to external proposals. Second half of October will make sure proposals are in a good space. Will make decisions on which proposals have consensus in November. Might have to combine proposals to make
18:25:22 <jgraham> a good set of focus areas. In December make sure we have agreement on exact tests. Next year we do the work on fixing things and execute on metric.
18:25:24 <kadirtopal> present+
18:25:54 <dom> [slide 13]
18:26:02 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:26:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/14-interop-minutes.html dom
18:26:37 <dom> s/|s/[s
18:26:42 <jgraham> foolip: How to make a proposal? There's a template on the GH repo you can use. Need an overall rationale for why to include the feature. Could be e.g. sites working around an issue, which shows it's causing a problem for web develoeprs
18:26:51 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #interop
18:26:52 <dom> [slide 14]
18:27:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/14-interop-minutes.html fantasai
18:27:33 <emilio> emilio has joined #interop
18:27:38 <dom> [slide 15]
18:27:49 <jgraham> foolip: We only intend to work on stuff that's already on standards track. Expect it to be mostly WHATWG/W3C specs, but could be other standards bodies. Non specced things are out. Things that are in incubation are only in scope if they move onto the standards track.
18:28:20 <jgraham> foolip: Tests need to be selected.
18:28:35 <dom> [slide 16]
18:29:20 <jgraham> foolip: After submitting expect additional questions. Getting proposal into good shape will require taking that feedback until end of October. Not useful to make a proposal that won't meet bar of consensus. If there are lots of proposals might require additional prioritisation.
18:29:31 <jgraham> foolip: Now a discussion
18:29:32 <leobalter> leobalter has joined #interop
18:29:58 <jgraham> heycam: Interp 2022 had points allocated to research. Are we still trying that?
18:31:33 <jgraham> foolip: Yes, omitted from the presentation, but there's also a template for that. Require more clarity upfront for what the investigation actually is. e.g. with viewport units for 2022 we didn't make a concrete task list for how scoring would work and progress has been slow. But we think we're at 50% for that one now, but haven't confirmed with the subteam to update the score.
18:31:48 <jgraham> heycam: So you also want proposals for research areas?
18:32:43 <jgraham> foolip: If we know which areas are causing the most problems for developers, and it's something that's not well specified then it's a good idea to make an investigation effort. Could be spec problems, or missing test infrastructure. Would like to be able to treat it as a focus area next time around.
18:33:11 <flackr> q+
18:33:31 <jgraham> emilio: Viewport in particular we should work on in 2023 with a way to test dynamic viewport, zoom, etc. We know what behaviours are, where we want to end up, but we don't have test infrastruture.
18:33:45 <jgraham> emilio: I hope to propose that.
18:33:50 <dom> q?
18:33:54 <jgraham> heycam: Is that a testdriver problem?
18:34:24 <jgraham> karl: We discussed this. If there's no automation possible we can't make a focus area.
18:34:39 <jgraham> ack flackr
18:34:40 <dom> ack flackr
18:34:46 <gregwhitworth> gregwhitworth has joined #interop
18:34:53 <gregwhitworth> present+
18:34:59 <gregwhitworth> q?
18:35:01 <jgraham> flackr: We should only have things that are specced was mentioned, but we have gaps in spec, are those OK?
18:35:07 <karlcow> karlcow has joined #interop
18:35:07 <gregwhitworth> q+
18:36:00 <jgraham> foolip: Yes, that sounds like a good candidate for an investigate area. That's the case for the existing investigation efforts. In some cases there might be a mix of good tests and gaps. Don't have a specific plan for that scenario, bt we can see which proposals we get.
18:36:03 <tantek> q?
18:36:05 <jgraham> ack gregwhitworth
18:36:13 <chrishtr> chrishtr has joined #interop
18:36:16 <miriam> miriam has joined #interop
18:36:18 <miketaylr> miketaylr has joined #interop
18:36:23 <dizhang> dizhang has joined #interop
18:36:45 <foolip> foolip has joined #interop
18:36:55 <foolip> present+
18:37:05 <fantasai> present+
18:37:07 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: What's the stage of the spec that we expect it to be in for interop? Also, is there a fork of this effort that's specifically about spec effort? e.g. for container queries we got a lot of requests for the feature, can we use the same approach?
18:37:09 <dholbert> present+
18:37:12 <miketaylr> present+
18:37:21 <rachelandrew> present+
18:37:32 <rego_> present+
18:37:38 <karlcow> present+
18:37:39 <jgraham> chrishtr: e.g. we don't have resources for this year, but we want to do it next year?
18:37:42 <leobalter> present+
18:37:51 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: Yes
18:38:09 <miriam> present+
18:38:34 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: e.g. scoped custom element registeries. Could we leverage this to get the spec work prioritised in 2024?
18:39:02 <jgraham> chrishtr: Encouraging people to work on closing the gaps could be in scope for an investigation issue
18:39:05 <jgraham> q+
18:39:22 <dom> scribe+
18:39:29 <dom> jgraham: doing spec work is explicitly not in scope
18:39:51 <dom> ... if you want something to be in scope for next year, you can use this to rally efforts towards an interop push
18:39:53 <chrishtr> q+
18:40:14 <dom> ... this isn't a process to overtake WG priorities
18:40:24 <dom> ack jgraham
18:41:12 <foolip> q+
18:41:37 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: It seems like features like subgrid and conatiner queries also needed spec work.
18:42:02 <jgraham> plh: At the next breakout we'll talk about webdx, which might address this concern.
18:42:17 <foolip> Yes, and it had been shipping in Firefox for a few years already.
18:42:22 <jgraham> plh: That might be a way to help WGs prioritise work
18:42:45 <flackr> q+
18:42:45 <chrishtr> q-
18:42:46 <jgraham> heycam: By the time that subgrid and container queries were taken as focus areas tehy were in a good state.
18:42:56 <jgraham> ack foolip
18:43:10 <dgrogan> dgrogan has joined #interop
18:43:42 <ydaniv> ydaniv has joined #interop
18:43:57 <jgraham> foolip: To answer question about spec maturity. For WHATWG everything is a LS so anything with PR goes. For W3C require at least a FPWD so it's on Rec. track. Something only in a CG is out of scope.
18:44:03 <dom> s/plh:/dom:/
18:44:37 <jgraham> foolip: New things are not in scope. Can be grey areas. If you have a proposal and you're not sure, please reach out.
18:45:13 <dom> q?
18:45:18 <jgraham> foolip: I also share the urge to use a process like this for spec, but there isn't consensus and there are risks to that. Don't want to commit to successfully speccing something
18:45:20 <foolip> q-
18:45:21 <jgraham> ack flackr
18:45:22 <dom> ack flackr
18:45:54 <foolip> q+
18:45:57 <jgraham> flackr: There's been a lot of tension about what's testable e.g. mobile is hard to test. Are we going to emphasise development of features in test infra?
18:46:09 <dom> jgraham: mobile testing is hard
18:46:12 <fantasai> s/test infra/test infra, or is manual testing in scope or.../
18:46:20 <dom> ... we focus on automatic testing - we can't include manual test
18:46:27 <dom> ... the score is based on automated results from WPT
18:46:36 <dom> ... test infrastructure is definitely in scope for investigation
18:46:55 <dom> ... mobile testing needs specific hardware testing in CI
18:47:13 <foolip> q-
18:47:13 <dom> ... we would welcome proposals to help solve that
18:47:20 <gregwhitworth> browserstack partnership?
18:47:21 <dom> ack fantasai
18:47:21 <jgraham> ack fantasai
18:49:11 <tantek> +1 fantasai nudging WGs to prioritize and publish CRs makes sense
18:49:21 <foolip> q+
18:49:49 <astearns> no minuting?
18:49:53 <gregwhitworth> q+
18:50:18 <jgraham> fantasai: I agree with the idea of focusing with things that are only on the rec track. It would be helpful if interop areas are brought to the attention of WG chairs, so that we can also progress specs to CR to signal that we believe the spec is in a good place. Having that priority input to CSSWG would be welcome. On the topic of things without test infrastructure, it seems unfortunate to totally
18:50:24 <jgraham> exclude these things. Some specs are difficult to test in an automated way that are important e.g. media queries or scroll snapping. Those are important features. Might want to pick one of these. There is a manual test harness in the CSSWG that could help.
18:50:32 <jgraham> fantasai: Consider having at least  one manually tested feature.
18:50:42 <dom> q?
18:50:44 <jgraham> ack foolip
18:50:53 <emilio> q+
18:51:00 <gsnedders2> gsnedders2 has joined #interop
18:51:26 <gregwhitworth> q later
18:51:56 <foolip> q-
18:51:56 <gregwhitworth> q- later
18:51:56 <jgraham> foolip: I agree that it would be unfortuante to totally exclude manual tests. I've discussed it with karlcow, but I don't think there's consensus yet. If there are specific features with lots of manual tests you could submit it and we'll see if we can work out a way to include it. If it's important to devs we should find a way.
18:52:07 <jgraham> ack emilio
18:53:18 <mustaq__> mustaq__ has joined #interop
18:53:44 <jgraham> emilio: For those kinds of features where we don't have good automated tests in wpt, we should prioritise getting ways of testing that into wpt. All of these features are tested internally in browsers; we don't land these features with only manual tests. Sometimes requires internal APIs. Some of these are not too hard to get an API for. For media queries could have overrides to force certian features. I
18:53:49 <gregwhitworth> all I'm hearing emilio say is to standardize the render tree :P
18:53:50 <jgraham> think we should work on getting these tests in wpt.
18:53:56 <jgraham> ack fantasai
18:53:56 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to emilio to respond
18:54:19 <jgraham> fantasai: I dont oppose wanting to automate more things, but some stuff is really hard to automate in a cross platform way
18:54:22 <jgraham> q+
18:54:34 <jgraham> fantasai: Some stuff like high gamut monitors seems hard to automate.
18:54:47 <foolip> q?
18:54:58 <flackr> qq+
18:55:00 <jgraham> emilio: For everything browsers can test internally we should be able to to share tests.
18:55:05 <astearns> s/like high/like plugging in a high/
18:56:27 <jgraham> emilio: Hardware interaction might be a case where it's nt possible to write a test. But overriding the media query values is a feature we already have in e.g. devtools. So n API to toggle the media query would help.
18:57:02 <dom> jgraham: we also get strong requests from developers to be able to override e.G. hardware integration for testing
18:57:13 <dom> ... e.G. in puppeteer
18:57:42 <jgraham> q?
18:58:13 <fantasai> fantasai: But have you actually correctly implemented the feature, if you are never testing whether the hookup through the OS drivers actually works?
18:58:25 <jgraham> flackr: WebDriver injection points always involve some kind of emulation. But a lot of these things are cases we can test using that approach.
18:58:42 <flackr> q-
18:59:02 <jgraham> emilio: e.g. zooming scenario tests don't test at the OS level.
18:59:12 <jgraham> q?
18:59:17 <jgraham> q- jgraham
18:59:33 <fantasai> fantasai: That's fine for testing below that hookup, and also for regression testing, but at some point you need to test end to end
18:59:39 <jgraham> foolip: Let's have proposals and see what makes sense for the concrete proposals.
19:00:06 <foolip> q+
19:00:23 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: Is there a quantitive way to prioritse propsals for voting.
19:00:54 <miketaylr> s/propsals/proposals/
19:01:13 <dom> ack gregwhitworth
19:01:13 <dom> ack foolip
19:01:20 <karlcow> s/prioritse/prioritise/
19:02:02 <jgraham> foolip: We will use things like use counters. Some survey data is quantitaive. I would say overall method isn't to provide a sorted list of proposals, we always have to provide human judgement. It's also consensus based, so we don't have a list except what everyone can agree to put into the metric.
19:02:29 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: Awesome to see this effort.
19:02:48 <jgraham> chrishtr: Does anyone have a proposal in mind they'd like to ask about?
19:03:27 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: Things like reporting api, we have a list, but not sure if they all meet the criteria
19:03:44 <jgraham> tantek: High level question is which are in CR, which aren't?
19:03:56 <foolip> q+
19:04:05 <jgraham> tantek: Better chance to get proposals accepted in CR
19:04:21 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: Some of it doesn't seem likely to be for this effort.
19:04:30 <astearns> near the top of my list is P3 support in WebGL canvases, but that should have been part of the color topic for 2022 (where the WebGL tests were not included)
19:04:57 <jgraham> <discussion about dir pseudoclass>
19:04:59 <foolip> astearns: We have talked about how we'd expand existing areas, for cases like this.
19:05:33 <jgraham> gregwhitworth: Also declarative shadow dom
19:05:53 <jgraham> emilio: Interaction between :dir() pseudoclass and shadow dom is interesting.
19:06:45 <jgraham> chrishtr: This sounds like a grey area where a submissin might motivate getting the spec work done.
19:07:14 <jgraham> bkardell: We have lots of tests, but need to resolve some spec issues. I would support it as a proposal.
19:07:39 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/7424
19:08:07 <miriam> q+
19:08:14 <kadirtopal> q+
19:08:17 <jgraham> chrishtr: For declatrative shadow dom there's only one browser implementation. Research to gather dev sentiment even if it doesn't end up as proposal. Part of the point of the effort is to help us focus on things that matter. Also helps focus on getting things across the finish line.
19:08:23 <dom> q?
19:08:27 <jgraham> ack foolip
19:08:29 <foolip> q-
19:08:36 <dom> ack miriam
19:08:37 <jgraham> ack miriam
19:09:32 <heycam_> heycam_ has joined #interop
19:09:32 <dom> ack kadirtopal
19:09:35 <jgraham> miriam: My team has been working on CSS polyfills. There's a question about which things are useful to implement polyfills. Don't want to have to reimplement the cascade or parsers. Don't know how the features to help those cases fit in.
19:09:42 <heycam_> q+
19:10:12 <miriam> specifically `@property` would make a big difference for polyfills
19:10:32 <jgraham> kadirtopal: ad-hoc prioritisation sometimes works, but focusing on what developers really need is important. Want to actually get things into developers hands. Going to talk more about this in developer experience session.
19:10:42 <dom> ack heycam_
19:10:42 <jgraham> ack heycam_
19:11:19 <foolip> q+
19:11:30 <jgraham> heycam_: One area I think we might have interop problems with is SVG. People are sharing lists of bugs. That's quite a wide area and I don't know how to focus it more. Can we make a top level focus area that broad?
19:12:12 <jgraham> bkardell: We did some "bags" of things this year e.g. forms. Would like to see one covering other embedded content SVG & MathML.
19:12:31 <jgraham> heycam_: SVG coverage in wpt has been poor and I want to improve, but been hard ot prioritise.
19:12:33 <karlcow> karlcow has joined #interop
19:12:55 <dom> https://wpt.fyi/results/svg?label=master&label=experimental&aligned shows ~4000 test assertions
19:12:58 <ydaniv> q+
19:13:19 <jgraham> chrishtr: If there are lots of tests, we could consider that an area. e.g. for forms we saw lots of tests, but also failures.
19:13:44 <jgraham> bkardell: Sometimes browsers get 80% but they're different 80%.
19:14:17 <jgraham> gsnedders2: SVG is inconsistent on how many tests there are for each area e.g. a lot of tests for path parsing, but some areas have little coverage.
19:14:27 <gsnedders2> q?
19:14:30 <dom> ack foolip
19:14:30 <jgraham> ack foolip
19:14:45 <foolip> q-
19:14:48 <dom> ack ydaniv
19:14:51 <jgraham> foolip: If you think SVG is an issue file a proposal and we can figure out the details.
19:16:16 <jgraham> ydaniv: Huge demand for SVG. Images are also a problem. Features like loading attribute. It's important to get this 100% across browsers. AVIF shipped in Safari, could be a chance to get servers to start transcoding to AVIF. Bugs can hurt performance.
19:16:37 <jgraham> RRSAgent: make minutes
19:16:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/14-interop-minutes.html jgraham
19:17:14 <jgraham> RRSAgent, bye
19:17:14 <RRSAgent> I see no action items