Upcoming WHATNOT meeting on 6/6/2024

[past]

What is the issue with the HTML Standard?

Today we held our now weekly triage call (#10365) and I will post the meeting notes there in a bit. The next one is scheduled for June 6, 9am PDT. Note that this is 1 week later in an Americas+Europe friendly time.

People interested in attending the next call please respond here or reach out privately to me, @cwilso or the spec editors. We will be tagging issues for the next call again using the agenda+ label in all WHATWG repos and we would like to invite anyone that can contribute to said issues to join us.

[annevk]

I will be traveling so I can't attend this week, but whatwg/meta#321 came up during the Web Engines Hackfest and is something we should discuss to make WHATWG more accessible to people. Feel free to discuss without me, but could also be postponed til next time.

[past]

Thank you all for attending the meeting today and special thanks to Chris Harrelson for copiously taking meeting notes! Note that I fixed a configuration issue that had people stuck waiting to be admitted to the meeting (apologies to both of you), so this shouldn't be a problem again. Here are the notes from this meeting (the next one is at #10400):

Agenda

Attendees: Panos Astithas, David Baron, Robert Flack, Mason Freed, Chris Harrelson, Benjamin VanderSloot, Kagami Rosylight, Vladimir Levin
Scribe: Chris Harrelson

1. Review past action items
   1. Ben to ask Emilio for Gecko's perspective on anchor attribute. Anne and Tim to comment from the WebKit side.
      1. Done.
2. Carryovers from last time
   1. Action: Anne to review the Introduce DOM post-connection steps PR for editorial content. Dom to file a new issue and refer to this PR.
      1. Done.
   2. Emilio to work on pulling out the common points for iframe throttling into the issue about Consider improving interoperability of <iframe> throttling margins, and maybe a spec PR.
      1. Carry over.
   3. Revisit invoketarget naming discussion. Concrete naming proposal is commandfor/command.
      1. Discussion continues on the issue, will keep it on the agenda to try to reach consensus by next week.
3. New topics
   1. [Emilio/Mason] [forms] Number input intrinsic size
      1. Next step is for Emilio to collect compat data and propose a spec PR for min/max.
   2. [Anne] Advertising WHATNOT
      1. General consensus is that this seems useful, but the group would like to better understand the goal here.
   3. [Anne] HTTPS upgrades proposal
      1. Chris will ping Mustafa for a Chrome update.
   4. [vmpstr] Seeking feedback on contentvisibilityautostatechange event PR
      1. Ben will ping Emilio for Gecko's take on this.

Action Items

1. @emilio to collect compat data and propose a spec PR for min/max in [forms] Number input intrinsic size.
2. @chrishtr will ping @meacer for a Chrome update on HTTPS upgrades proposal.
3. @bvandersloot-mozilla will ping @emilio for Gecko's take on the contentvisibilityautostatechange event PR.

Minutes

Panos: Emilio commented on anchor attribute, WebKit did too.
Mason: would love to keep conversation going, and find consensus to land something for these use cases.
Panos: DOM post-connection steps PR merged!
Panos: Emilio + throttling: seems like no progress or update, will carry over to the next meeting.
Panos: revisit invoketarget naming. A new concrete name has been proposed.
Mason: Lots of discussion has happened in the last 24 hours with new thoughts.
Chris: has the latest commentary been towards commandfor?
Mason: yes, but there seems to be a move towards removing implicit commands; still trying to understand that because it is a useful feature to me.
Panos: New topics:
Panos: Number input intrinsic size: there is behavior in webkit and blink about number input that is not in the spec or Gecko. Proposal is to standardize what is in webkit and blink, and add similar behavior for the size attribute and make it work for autosizing number inputs.
Mason: good with the second if it's web compatible, first is fine too.
Chris: can we break this into two steps? First one is easy and uncontroversial, second one has questions.
Mason: agreed.
Panos: which should we do first?
Mason: can do both in parallel - in practice, landing the spec first while gathering data about compat of the second.
Panos: next topic, advertising WHATNOT
Panos: proposal is to advertise in the issue template so that people know this meeting exists and can join, perhaps with a checkbox
Mason: don't want to require the checkbox, that seems bad
Benjamin: as someone who had to ask someone with the ability to do so to join this meeting, need to make clear how to do so for future people
Panos: agree
Mason: can't just publish meeting links online since some might abuse it
Panos: consensus that it's good to advertise better but we should understand the goal better, discuss more next time
Rob: not totally sure what the concern was, but better tooling seems helpful
Panos: next topic, HTTPS upgrades
Panos: question seems to be for gecko, or maybe Chrome, asking if Chrome is still pursuing it.
Rob: one milestone shipped in Chrome 115
Chris: yes but there is probably more to do.
Panos: what about the nuance at the end of the thread? Someone from Chrome to weigh in?
Panos: just ping the right person at Chrome?
Chris: will do.
Panos: new topic, contentvisibilityautostatechange event PR
Vlad: would like feedback on contentvisibilityautostatechange PR
Benjamin: sure, will add to Emilio's queue