Agenda for Aug 11 meeting

[foolip]

Here's the agenda for our meeting tomorrow:

• -webkit-line-clamp #16 (comment) (@jensimmons question on revisiting, @bfgeek invited to meeting for short discussion)
• Interop 2023 RFC updates
  • Feedback from @gsnedders and @jgraham addressed in web-platform-tests/rfcs@6b4f42e. These changes give the team more flexibility to decide on details later.
• Interop Team Charter RFC updates
  • TODO @foolip
• Test change review. These are all pending since last week, no action in the meeting:
  • Remove/Change containment tests testing support for display: ruby-text #101
  • Remove inert-svg-hittest.html from Interop 2022 wpt-metadata#2925
  • Remove relative color syntax from Interop 2022 #104
• Investigation effort updates
  • Editing (@jgraham): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-editing
  • Pointer and Mouse Events (@flackr): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-pointer
  • Viewport (@bramus): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022-viewport
    • Meeting 2 (2022-08-10) interop-2022-viewport#3 (comment), action items at the end

Previous meeting: #103

[meyerweb]

Philip: Jen asked about line-clamp

IanK: Some history about this, -webkit-line-clamp landed when it was still kind of okay to ship under prefix. This was a precursor to flexbox, that's how old it is. Was probably done for something internal like iTunes or something. (It was Safari RSS.) It is a particularly useful feature, though. We did some analysis a few years ago and tried to move it as close to the standards implementation as possible. Because this operates on the old flexbox model, it has strange behavior when you clamp and have multiple flex items. The one bit we’re missing is the spec says to add a fragmentainer break after the last line; we may be able to do this next year. Web devs are complaining about lack of RTL, inconsistency in line height calculations, etc.

Philip: If you take this up again, would you test both prefixed and unprefixed?

IanK: A path forward would be to rewrite the tests to test the unprefixed when supported, prefixed if unprefixed isn’t supported. We could also do 5-10% of tests that check all the complicated things like overflow: hidden being needed to hide subsequent lines. Focus would be on the prefixed, with a smattering of tests for unprefixed.

SamS: As I remember, Jen wanted to know if there was any spec work needed to move forward on this.

IanK: Not really. Hopefully we’ll be able to implement that spec version, and the spec is good.

SamS: We probably want to change the spec so the prefixed version doesn’t require -webkit-box-.

IanK: I think that will still be required.

SamS: So it requires this prefix but creates a flow context.

IanK: We’ll look at display, orientation, and line clamp and then create a block flow, if that makes sense. line-clamp only applies to block flow.

Philip: So the spec is like this for site compatibility.

IanK: We did a lot of work to make sure we could convert to a block flow. We could do the extra checks but I don’t think that’s blocking any of the tests or work, and doesn’t provide that much value.

Philip: Do you think it’s worth submitting the proposal again with this bigger shape?

SamS: Not sure.

Philip: On the Blink side, we’d like to propose both the prefixed and unprefixed being included. The question goes back to Apple.

IanK: We believe dropping content is relatively complex for engines in implement. We can get everyone to change their -webkit- behavior, but I don’t think we should write tests to only look at line-clamp. We need the prefixed version tested, since it’s what people are using.

[meyerweb]

Philip: I’ve updated the 2023 RFC today, to address questions. Please check it out so we can get it landed. For example, James proposed we have proposals as pull requests with Markdown. We can require that if we like. Wanted to keep flexibility.

Philip: Hoped to push 2023 Team Charter RFC changes today, but it’s not up yet. Hopefully by the end of today. Mostly made the edits discussed last time. Anything about the charter and setup that anyone wants to have a discussion about?

(silence)

Philip: On test change review, no new requests since last time, but still have three to resolve. I’ve pinged James on two. Anyone know who we fall back to when James is on holiday?

Sam S: James is back at the end of the month.

Philip: Sam, you’re really the only person here who could approve the Interop 2023 RFC.

Sam S: We could probably prod Tantek about this, that seems reasonable.

Philip: Good idea. It would be good to have someone from Apple and someone from Mozilla.

Philip: Moving on to investigation of updates. I’ve caught up with Bramus on viewport units. We talked about a lot, and some action items were opened. Bramus will be converting them to issues, and that’ll be the burn-down effort. Looks like viewport might be the first to be totally defined.

Philip: Any updates on any other investigations?

Una: I could add Bramus to this meeting for next time.

Philip: Good idea. Might be good to add Rob Flack as well.

Philip: Any other topics in our last two minutes?

(silence)

Philip: Hearing none, we are adjourned.