| 00:49 | <JonathanNeal> | Is there any talk on allowing Elements https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#elements to apply to more than query/queryAll? |
| 02:34 | <karlcow> | o_O https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JanMar/0585.html |
| 02:36 | <karlcow> | same person? https://twitter.com/marcfawzi/with_replies |
| 06:25 | <MikeSmith> | karlcow: that's actually a natural-language chatter bot somebody wrote that seems to have gotten out of hand |
| 06:25 | <MikeSmith> | karlcow: the clue is that his name is an anagram of the French word for "wingnut" |
| 06:28 | <karlcow> | pfew… I had doubts. |
| 06:28 | <karlcow> | ;) |
| 08:23 | <annevk> | Oh look, moving DOM attributes to prototypes is back for another round on blink-dev |
| 08:23 | <annevk> | Please place your bets now |
| 08:36 | <MikeSmith> | haha |
| 08:38 | <MikeSmith> | I'll take any bet against that at 40-1 |
| 08:40 | <MikeSmith> | 5 years from now we'll still be waiting on that to happen |
| 08:42 | <annevk> | http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/post/35475527654/theyll-remove-h-264-support-any-moment-now |
| 08:42 | <annevk> | Bit more hopeful that it sticks though, provided the perf claims are true this time around |
| 08:55 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I'm just trolling |
| 08:55 | <MikeSmith> | I'm actually optimitistic too |
| 08:56 | <MikeSmith> | I know haraken's put a ton of work into trying to make it happen |
| 09:29 | <annevk> | I wish GitHub had an option to ignore a thread until you're mentioned again |
| 09:30 | <annevk> | Sometimes people pull me in to ask something but then the thread goes on after for a long time without needing any input from me |
| 09:30 | <annevk> | I guess I'm just going to unsubscribe in those cases and require out-of-band contact |
| 09:48 | annevk | replies to everything BackgroundSync |
| 10:22 | <jgraham> | darobin: Was there one of those "file a bug on this spec" implementations that's trivial to drop into ReSpec specs? |
| 10:25 | <darobin> | jgraham: you mean a script that, say, takes your selection and uses that to fill out the bug? |
| 10:25 | <darobin> | or just generating a link to the bug tracker? |
| 10:27 | <jgraham> | darobin: More like the former. Something that allows me to somehow file a bug saying "this part of the spec sucks" where it is obvious what "this" is, without leaving the spec |
| 10:28 | <darobin> | jgraham: no, ReSpec deliberately stops at generation and does not take care of adding interactivity down the line |
| 10:29 | <darobin> | jgraham: but if this is for a bugzilla tracker there's a script you can use, not great but sort of operational |
| 10:29 | <jgraham> | "Not great but sort of operational" sounds better than "not". Which is what we currently have. |
| 10:30 | <darobin> | http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/js/bug-assist.js |
| 10:30 | <jgraham> | darobin: Thanks! |
| 10:30 | <darobin> | it will take selected text into account, but it won't report stuff like scrolling offset if the user just clicks the button without selection |
| 10:31 | <darobin> | a pleasure |
| 11:20 | <annevk> | JakeA: I don't really think it's desirable to expose HTTP push directly |
| 11:20 | <annevk> | JakeA: it's rather nice that it's transparent to the application what protocol is in use |
| 11:22 | <JakeA> | annevk: I had a half-baked idea of response.push containing an array of {request, response}. But I agree I don't think it's particularly important |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | I would imagine you'd get a distinct pushfetch event or some such |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | But it seems a bit like a hack to expose network protocol details in that manner |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | Because what you'll get is exactly what he proposes, that applications become dependent on the protocol |
| 11:24 | <JakeA> | yeah, also I really don't know enough about http/2 to make a decent call here. I'm not even sure if pushed resources are part of a specific response or part of the general stream |
| 11:24 | <JakeA> | agreed |
| 12:21 | <annevk> | "Your message to Unbearable awaits moderator approval" IETF lists suck so much |
| 12:22 | <annevk> | (same for the WHATWG list, but at least it's just a onetime affair) |
| 12:25 | <annevk> | https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balfanz-https-token-binding-00#section-3.4 is funny. "an XML HTTP request", "the XmlHttpRequest object", "the XmlHttpRequest", "web origin", ... oh my |
| 14:25 | <JonathanNeal> | After watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRYN2xt11Ek I have been wondering if there’s a place for their Event Model in native JS so I’ve thrown this very rough demo together: http://sandbox.thewikies.com/EventObserver/ |
| 14:26 | <annevk> | JonathanNeal: comes up every now and then within TC39 |
| 14:27 | <annevk> | JonathanNeal: I stopped working on https://gist.github.com/annevk/5238964 when I learned that, but I don't think much progress has been made |
| 14:29 | <JonathanNeal> | Yea, I like that. |
| 14:45 | <JonathanNeal> | I wanted to use the name `then` instead of `forEach`, but in Promises you never fire the onFulfilled method multiple times, right? |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | JonathanNeal: right, a promise either returns a value or throws, similar to a function |
| 16:13 | <JonathanNeal> | annevk: how could I bring this to folks-that-know-how-to-pitch-ideas attention? |
| 16:28 | <annevk> | JonathanNeal: I'm not sure what you mean |
| 17:12 | <Domenic> | annevk: I think Unsubscribe does that actually. Unsubscribe is not "Ignore" |
| 17:24 | <benjamingr> | Domenic: I'm in a meeting about DOM web components and other web standards stuff - do I send anyone from google or another place pics? |
| 17:24 | <Domenic> | benjamingr: I don't really understand? Why would anyone want pictures of your meeting? |
| 17:26 | <benjamingr> | Haha, don't know - it's not my meeting at all. I just got invited and there are 200 people here. Google and other companies has this thing where it likes meetings and stuff so I wanted to know if anyone would care. |
| 17:37 | <rafaelrinaldi> | benjamingr take a selfie of you doing a gang sign on stage and send us |
| 17:50 | <benjamingr> | Hah sure |
| 18:18 | <annevk> | Domenic: oh okay |
| 18:35 | <wanderview> | is SharedArrayBuffer a spec'd thing? |
| 19:09 | <annevk> | wanderview: oh is that out? |
| 19:09 | <annevk> | wanderview: in December it seemed like it was mostly lth's idea |
| 19:21 | <wanderview> | annevk: I was told in #jsapi that its not out yet |
| 19:28 | <Domenic> | wanderview: I don't know if this is related but it's the arraybuffer technology I'm most excited about: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/ArrayBuffer/transfer |
| 19:38 | <JonathanNeal> | I’m trying to formalize an idea of EventObservers http://sandbox.thewikies.com/EventObserver/ What would be the place to pitch this? DOM mailing list? |
| 19:39 | <caitp-> | which one |
| 19:39 | <botie> | i think which one is correct? |
| 20:02 | <smaug____> | JonathanNeal: I guess dom mailing list |
| 20:03 | <JonathanNeal> | smaug____: thanks! |
| 21:19 | <annevk> | Domenic: SharedArrayBuffer is shared memory |
| 21:19 | <annevk> | Domenic: it's much more exciting and also much more scary |
| 21:20 | <Domenic> | @_@ |
| 21:20 | <caitp-> | shmemory |
| 21:33 | <wanderview> | annevk: Domenic: yea, but kind of cool we can use the ideas in this issue to share the buffers from a pipe with another worker for processing, etc: https://github.com/whatwg/streams/issues/253 |