Agenda for Sep 29 meeting

[foolip]

Here's the agenda for our meeting tomorrow:

• State of CSS soft launched today, let's discuss "Interop 2023 in State of CSS?" email sent on Sep 28
• FYI: focus-area-proposal Focus Area Proposal , 27 proposals so far
• FYI: Progress reporting for 2022 Investigation #157
• test-change-proposal Proposal to add or remove tests for an interop area review

Previous meeting: #140

[foolip]

Brief notes

Present: @chrishtr @foolip @gsnedders @jensimmons @nt1m @zcorpan

State of CSS

@jensimmons: Largely agree with James, especially if we only have half of the proposals. Unclear how we'd use the results, since we're not really ranking proposals and picking a few.
@foolip: No action is OK for State of CSS. The value I'd see in a question like this is for us to spend more time on the top half of proposals than the bottom half, to perhaps try a bit harder if we find that a very popular proposal is lacking in tests, for example. I've proposed a short survey on MDN, will write separate email about this.
@jensimmons: Should consider the style of the question, not just pick 3, but some ranking
@zcorpan: maxdiff from MDN?
@foolip: Yep, randomly pick best and worst from random groups of choices. But it's time consuming, drop off rates for this were high in MDN DNA.

Proposals

@foolip: Any overlap we need to deal with so far?
@gsnedders: There are some that overlap a little.
@jensimmons: Last year we concluded we didn't want big buckets or areas, but more granular. This time we wanted to combine the afterwards. For some we might want to break them out.
@foolip: Any we should ask to split right?
@jensimmons: Not right now, that's not what I intended.

@foolip: I'll close #136 or break it up, not its own bucket proposal.

Investigation Efforts

@DanielRyanSmith: Put up web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi#2982, should be done by meeting next week.
@jensimmons: Any other investigation effort updates?
@foolip: Both @jgraham and @flackr have promised to come back with a score after the next meetings.
@zcorpan: For pointer events, we have a spreadsheet with a lot of issues, haven't triaged all of them. Going to determine in the coming weeks which have sufficient tests and spec.
@foolip: Fair to say it's halfway done in the next meeting?
@zcorpan: Certainly more than zero percent done.

Test change review

On #109:

@nt1m: Should Interop 2022 be expanded or should this be added in 2023?
@foolip: If everyone agrees, and this feature existed in the spec at the time, then I think it'd be OK to treat as missing tests and add them. Does Safari already support this?
@nt1m: Yes.
@foolip: I'd lean towards adding these to 2022 if everyone agrees.

Needs someone from Gecko to take a look.

On #137:

Discussion about how to deal with optional behavior in the spec.

@jensimmons: If it's optional in the spec, doesn't seem right to penalize browsers for not having it.
@foolip: Agree if any browser doesn't intend to implement. But don't think we should go hunting elsewhere for optional behavior that everybody does implement and pass some tests. (Not suggested by anyone, to be clear.)

@foolip: Does WebKit intend to implement the optional behavior?
@nt1m: The person I talked to said no.
@foolip: Makes it a pretty simple case I think, should drop. Will need to ask for confirmation still, let's continue on GitHub.