Upcoming HTML standard issue triage meeting on 11/16/2023

[past]

What is the issue with the HTML Standard?

Today we held our biweekly triage call (#9874) and I will post the meeting notes there in a bit. The next one is scheduled for November 16, 1am PDT. Note that this is 2 weeks later in an APAC+Europe friendly time.

People interested in attending the next call please respond here or reach out privately to me 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.

[past]

Thank you all for attending today! Here are the notes from this meeting (the next one is at #9937):

Agenda

Attendees: Domenic Denicola, Kagami Rosylight, Noam Rosenthal, Anne van Kesteren, Simon Pieters, Keith Cirkel, Mike Smith

1. Review past action items
   1. Anne to provide feedback on Add steps to destroy documents that are ineligible for receiving message when posting message through broadcast channel.
      1. Carryover
   2. Yuzu to update Add back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons.
      1. In progress
   3. Olli to comment on Add section for BFCache eviction in cache clearing.
      1. Seems done? Discussion continues
2. Carryovers from last time
   1. None
3. New topics
   1. [Emilio] :active and activating via the keyboard
      1. Emilio is not here, so we should carry over.
      2. Domenic's take: this is waiting for someone to put forward a proposed good model, then we can all critique it.
   2. [Noam] Restored tabs
      1. Navigation timing is weird for restored tabs. Chrome shows as "back_forward". Would "reload" be better? Tab restoration is not standardized in general.
      2. (Discuss connection to bfcache and whether "back_forward" kind of makes sense.)
      3. Domenic: "navigate" seems better? Or a new value?
         1. Noam: but you restore with history, so it'd be pretty weird to get "navigate" when you might have stuff forward from you in history.
      4. Simon: "reload" might not fit since form control restoration is possibly different?
      5. Domenic: we should probably try to specify what restore looks like. Form controls, history, ...? Then we can decide what enum value to use (or a new one).
      6. (Some discussion of whether bfcache can be serialized to disk, at least in theory.)
      7. Noam: can we expose whether we have a cold start? Developers want it, but it's a potential privacy leak.
         1. Anne: probably we should not expose.
         2. Domenic: similar to things like languagechange, global events that can be used to correlate the user. If we can copy whatever solution was used for that, maybe OK? But tricky.
         3. Simon: if browsers restore not all at once, that would help.
   3. [Noam] Microtasks + event handlers interop issue, from web developers
      1. Apparently in Gecko the microtasks get mixed together
      2. Per spec, after each callback a microtask checkpoint should run. So whether multiple listeners for a single event, or multiple events each with multiple listeners, between each listener the microtask checkpoints should run.
   4. [Simon] Disallow interactive content in <summary>
      1. Anne: we can't disallow this, it's too common and it's useful
      2. Domenic: it's bad that AT isn't able to give their users the same capabilities as mouse/keyboard users
      3. Keith: can we change things from the browser side, e.g. expose as a group?
      4. Simon/Anne: not that simple, sadly
      5. Domenic: most recent summaries from ARIA space
         1. [Role Parity] What do we do about summary element? w3c/aria#939 (comment)
         2. summary element role mapping w3c/html-aam#345 (comment)
      6. (Discussion of why developers want to hide disclosure triangle and add interactive content)
      7. Domenic: should we go to ARIA and say "let's do a new role together"?
      8. Simon: separate from ATs, how to handle click events? This is an interop issue.
         1. (Discussion of what the spec probably says today, from memory. General question of nested activation behavior spec---is that interoperable? E.g. <a> inside <input type=submit>.)
         2. Proposal: only trigger innermost activation behavior, at least for <summary>, maybe for everything.
   5. [Keith] Domenic and Anne, please finish reviewing my enumerated attribute PRs!
   6. [Anne] I'm interested in form styling! appearance: auto, none, etc.
      1. Simon made progress but there are XXX boxes in the spec about "native appearance" and "primitive appearance": https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#native-appearance-2
      2. Discussion of what appearance: none really means. CSSWG says it should be useful, but that's probably not web-compatible (for checkboxes).
      3. Discussion of whether we could ever converge on things like bounding boxes, at least per-platform. 🤷

Action Items

1. @noamr to create an issue on GitHub to track speccing and web-exposing restoration of tabs.
2. @noamr will investigate this microtasks + event handlers issue, and report back.
3. @zcorpan to look more into nested interactive content spec behavior, with synthetic click events.
4. @annevk to get James Craig involved in the nested interactives/summary discussions.
5. @domenic & @annevk to figure out what we're doing with enumerated attributes and help land Keith's PRs.