| 07:32 | <annevk> | smaug: given the navigation/history rewrite it seems that should be more tractable now, in theory. I currently don't have time to investigate though. |
| 07:37 | <annevk> | smaug: also, I don't like putting the "cloning steps" before append in "clone a node", but I'll do it. It seems like in theory it could result in the same kind of issues. But it's also not important for scoped custom element registries where it is done so meh for now. |
| 07:42 | <annevk> | I should add, I really appreciate the thorough review. It has come out much better as a result. |
| 09:05 | <annevk> | Domenic: are you still around? Wanted to discuss some design issue with scoped custom element registries. We need to put the right custom element registry in scope when we call the constructor and then ideally we remove it from scope as soon as we can (as part of super(), inside HTMLElement's constructor) so there's as few side effects as possible. Of course, arbitrary script can run which can put other registries in scope and cause mischief. |
| 09:06 | <annevk> | So you need some kind of stack that HTMLElement's constructor pops. But it should only pop when the user agent pushed. |
| 09:06 | <Domenic> | Not really, but my GitHub email is in my personal inbox and I haven't been able to resist checking it daily yet |
| 09:08 | <annevk> | Oh that doesn't sound good. Well, I guess I'll try to leave you alone then. 😀 |
| 09:39 | <opemonee> | Any Cashapp? Chime? Zelle? Btc? Usdt?Skrill? Apple Pay? Pay pal? Venmo? BOA? Wells Fargo? Join my channel https://t.me/+32cFzLuOiacxZmM0 
Got any of these
Chase?
BOA?
Wells Fargo?
Navy federal?
Capital one?
Truist?
Att &t?
PNC?
TD bank?
Credit union?
M&T bank?
Santander bank?
Northwest bank?
Or any other local Bank
JOIN THE CHANNEL NOW TO GET PAID💯 ✅ |
| 10:54 | <smaug> | yeah, I'm not sure whether it matters too much where it is, but since implementations are consistent there... |
| 15:58 | <annevk> | smaug: are you going to review moveBefore() again? |
| 15:59 | <smaug> | yes |
| 15:59 | <annevk> | smaug: modulo some nits I think I'm okay merging it, though I need to check if everything is still in the right place in the document now that a couple of aspects are changed |
| 15:59 | <smaug> | and I need to look at the HTML bits |
| 16:00 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: I think that means we won't merge this before 2025, but we should be able to wrap it up early January |
| 16:02 | <smaug> | aha, I see, the connected check was removed |
| 16:04 | <Dominic Farolino> | Ah, so we can't expect smaug 's review until the new year is what you're saying maybe? |
| 16:05 | <smaug> | I'm definitely trying to review before the next whatnot |
| 16:08 | <Dominic Farolino> | Got it! In that case, I'm still holding out hope for merging before EOY :) |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | Well, I won't have time after WHATNOT. |
| 17:43 | <Dominic Farolino> | annevk & smaug: Outside of existing nits you're aware of, do you have any breaking/significant things in mind that you could imagine would need to change? We were hoping to ship this in the next Chrome milestone, so I just want to make sure we're as prepared as possible on our end for such things. |
| 17:44 | <smaug> | Dominic Farolino: earlier today I started to ponder if fullscreen needs some tweaks, but I didn't check the spec at all, so perhaps it is fine |
| 17:47 | <Dominic Farolino> | (should be OK since the fullscreen spec is pretty good about only unfullscreening things during the removal steps hook (which don't run during a move), but yes feel free to take a look too!) |