Re: Minutes: MathML Core Meeting of August 3, 2020

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:40 PM Frédéric Wang <fwang@igalia.com> wrote:

> On 04/08/2020 01:49, Neil Soiffer wrote:
>
> There are 28 MathML Core issues with "needs resolution"
>
> FWIW, I don't know if "needs resolution" correspond to the highest
> priority or is actually up-to-date. Also I think someone (from W3C?) said
> we shouldn't use this kind of label. The thing is that I used to put this
> label by default, but probably didn't always remove it e.g. when we decided
> not to put it in core level 1 (as we could come back to this in the future).
>

I doubt they do correspond to the highest priority, but in the absence of
input for what needs to be resolved first, we should just deal with all of
them and resolve the ones that can be resolved. They do eventually need to
all be cleared.

As for the W3C, they said don't use a "*-needs-resolution" label where "*"
refers to some group such as accessibility. As I understand it, that would
be a flag that the "*" group needs to resolve this.

> Anyway I think now core is in relatively good state, the issue labels on
> the spec corresponds to think we can't decide immediately in the group ; we
> should wait upstream work and CSS/WHATWG discussions.
>
My apologies if you have gone through all the "needs resolution" issues and
verified that flag is still valid. Just from glancing at some of them,  I
think some are old and are probably resolved or can be moved to level 2 and
hence don't need to be resolved to move forward with level 1/a spec.

> BTW, there was more feedback about mpadded incompat with CSS, which are
> blocking the upstreaming, so I wonder whether level 1 should simplify it
> even more (or remove it)
>
I'll add it to the agenda.

    Neil