| 00:59 | <roc> | it's worth it! |
| 13:59 | <JonathanNeal> | Hello! |
| 14:45 | <wanderview> | annevk: do you know if onbeforeevicted event is defined anywhere in more detail? (reading https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/611) |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | wanderview: I don't think it's more than an idea at this point |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | wanderview: I've heard about it before |
| 14:46 | <wanderview> | annevk: weird that its in the spec webidl then! |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | wanderview: ooh? |
| 14:46 | <wanderview> | annevk: https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/index.html#service-worker-global-scope |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | wanderview: not really sure what's going on then, JakeA? |
| 14:48 | <slightlyoff> | Kinuko is working on it now |
| 14:49 | <slightlyoff> | Work-in-progress |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: it seems wrong to put it in the spec if there's not even a proposal in public |
| 14:52 | <slightlyoff> | We're trying to get the full story together. Basically you need quota API + this to manage things intelligently, but this is just the minimal additive bit |
| 14:53 | <annevk> | Who is we? Google? |
| 15:02 | <JonathanNeal> | Okay, I’m casting a net. I’m curious how many web devs deal with ad blockers and what they think about circumventing it: https://twitter.com/jon_neal/status/561177352143908864 |
| 16:45 | <wanderview> | annevk: does anything actually set Response.finalURL yet? |
| 16:48 | <annevk> | wanderview: web developers can |
| 16:48 | <wanderview> | k |
| 16:49 | <annevk> | wanderview: I don't think there's any spec stuff that would set it |
| 16:49 | <annevk> | philipj: hey so xml:base in Chromium is not actually causing anything it seems, right? It's just observable in some places? |
| 16:50 | <philipj> | annevk: it has an observable effect in one place, and that's where the use counter is |
| 16:50 | <philipj> | but the good news is that it just reached stable and stayed at 0% |
| 16:51 | <philipj> | there's also SVGElement.xmlbase which I added a counter for just now |
| 16:51 | <philipj> | ed wrote https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Proposals/dropxmlattributes today after we discussed it |
| 16:51 | <annevk> | sweet |
| 16:52 | <philipj> | so I'd say xml:base is very likely killable |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | philipj: please don't let him introduce <svg:base> :-) |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | control over the base URL is so bad |
| 16:52 | <philipj> | is that a thing? |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | philipj: that wiki page suggests it might be |
| 16:53 | jgraham | feels his head exploding |
| 16:53 | <philipj> | annevk: oh. wouldn't it be exactly like <html:base>, presumably? that's not going anywhere, right? |
| 16:54 | <philipj> | maybe you should email him or comment on https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=341854 |
| 16:55 | <annevk> | philipj: html:base isn't going anywhere |
| 16:56 | <annevk> | pinged ed on Mozilla IRC |
| 16:57 | <philipj> | I think he's ed_work on #blink too |
| 16:58 | <annevk> | okay, pinged that too for good measure |
| 16:59 | <philipj> | FWIW, I find <base href> quite handy when reducing web sites to test cases |
| 16:59 | <philipj> | never used it for realz though |
| 17:00 | <annevk> | yeah, good for test cases is not a use case that flies |
| 17:01 | <philipj> | not for test cases, only for arriving at test cases :) |
| 17:01 | <philipj> | I suppose that's even less avian :) |
| 17:04 | <jgraham> | Critic (ab)uses <base> iirc |
| 17:06 | <jgraham> | I'm not defending <base> here, but "makes the platform more testable" doesn't seem like something categorically bad |
| 17:07 | <annevk> | the main badness with <base> is that a) it can appear anywhere and b) it's dynamic |
| 17:07 | <annevk> | of course, xml:base is even worse |
| 17:07 | <annevk> | all bad things have even worse twins |
| 17:08 | <annevk> | twin is not the right word |
| 17:08 | annevk | hides |
| 17:13 | <Ms2ger> | Cousins? |
| 17:14 | <jgraham> | Well XML is sort of the child of HTML and SGML |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | philipj: if you have flex:1 and I propose flex:none |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | philipj: how does it sound good :p |
| 17:27 | <philipj> | annevk: I don't know what the difference is, not the same? |
| 17:27 | <annevk> | philipj: I have no idea either, I have yet to play with flexbox |
| 17:29 | <philipj> | http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#flex-property |
| 17:30 | <philipj> | apparently flex:none means flex:0 0 auto |
| 17:36 | <philipj> | I commented on the bug again |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | thanks |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | flex:1 is fine by me |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | philipj: note that Chromium currently seems to restrict these styles to only a couple of elements |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | philipj: but I guess you already know that |
| 17:39 | <philipj> | yes, that too :/ |
| 17:39 | <philipj> | I don't think that's likely to cause trouble |
| 18:57 | <rubys> | annevk: ping? |
| 18:59 | <rubys> | annevk: nevermind. Figured it out :-) |