Travis: Started looking into what a breakout would be, but didn't get far.

Alex: How do we structure this to come away with a lot of progress?

Travis: Perhaps divide-and-conquer? Assign homework? Maybe work to a goal?

Dan: We could use a checklist? What could we do while at the face-to-face? Create some sort of document to split things up? One thing we keep talking about is how big of a rock this is--and need to de-compose the problem. We can break-up the one issue into smaller issues.

Travis: Yes, and I can have next steps ready for next week.

Peter: Travis isn't here, so let's punt.

(Travis joins.)

Travis: I have been making progress. Especially on how to subdivide it into chunks that can be reviewed by multiple people. Assumption is that larger test suites mean more complexity - so far 25 review sections. Some sections are pretty big - but I think I might have something to share pretty soon. Might grow into more reviews - will share draft when I have the first draft.

ACTION: Travis to finish and share.

Travis: This is my proposal to break it into bite-size chunks. Had some feedback from folks at Microsoft. Looking for feedback from this group on how the breakout is, or whether we should drop something from the review (e.g., appcache, microdata). Given guidance, happy to take this to the next step and open issues.

[reads]

Alex: Outline algorithm is still here?

Travis: We do use it for something in our a11y code, though simpler version than what's in the spec.

Alex: W3C or WHATWG document?

Travis: I was looking at the WHATWG document; more in it. e.g., server-sent events, websockets, cross-document messaging, web storage.

Travis: We already have a review open for two of them (offscreen canvas, ?).

David: seems like a reasonable breakdown; will reviewing them lead to useful outcomes?

Alex: Are there large piles of legacy APIs that can be rebuilt in terms of promises, generators (?), streams, etc. Also some things here that require permissions not currently modeled in the Permissions API.

Travis: We also talked about looking for things that aren't explained well by the platform; forms and form submission is one area we talked about. Identifying those could be useful.

Peter: Paths forward? You suggested breaking up into individual issues. Then we could spend time at the face-to-face triaging and assigning from there? Maybe add labels to categorize the sorts of things we're looking at.

Travis: I've got a template almost ready. Looks like this will create 33 issues.
Dan: will bump this out to the 24th. Also moving CSS issues so we don't have too much overlap.

Travis: I propose we close this issue. I've created issues for each of the section. Action for everyone: Look over issues: 242-274. Assign yourself to one of these reviews.

Dan: When you created these issues, have you linked them to specific issues in the HTML repo? Or have you stayed away from which vrsion of HTML we're reviewing?

Travis: I've been specific: these are all sections in the WHATWG document. That's a superset of what's in the W3C document. I"ve also tried to be specific on what parts of the spec to look at.

... For example... https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/242

...I'm not sure what milestones to set; each person claiming an issue should put in their own milestones.

dan: This is a lot of work; amazing that you've done this, Travis.

...Now we need to triage these and assign them out to people. Once everyone has claimed the ones they want, then we'll allocate the rest next week.

...Does the HTML community know we're doing this?

Travis: Domenic has commented on this issue. I can reach out to him and Anne.

Dan: The reason I was asking which version of HTML we're commenting on — AC meeting is coming up. The future of W3C in HTML and DOM will be on the table. the TAG will be asked to weigh in. I think we're doing the riht thing in referencing the WHATWG version, but it's bound to be controversial.

...If you're watching the AC list, the TAG's name is coming up a lot in questions about the future.

Hadley: I think we should discuss that before the AC meeting