| 01:10 | <MikeSmith> | marcosc: ping |
| 01:10 | <MikeSmith> | just landed |
| 01:13 | <MikeSmith> | Stallman is on the plane here |
| 01:41 | <theseb> | MikeSmith: what? |
| 07:37 | <yongc> | Is this a place for asking questions about MIME Sniffing doc? |
| 07:50 | <Ms2ger> | Sure |
| 07:50 | <Ms2ger> | GPHemsley, ^ |
| 07:56 | <yongc> | 1. In step 8 ""While sequence[s] is not equal to the U+002F SOLIDUS character ("/"), continuously execute the following steps". So for the content-type "type; parm=value" will set type as "type;parm=value" if there is no ''/" used type,parm,value. |
| 07:56 | <yongc> | 2. In step 8.2 "If sequence[s] is undefined, return undefined", what's the undefined for sequence[s] mean? Non US-ASCII character? |
| 08:00 | <Ms2ger> | I imagine "read past the end of the sequence" |
| 08:14 | <yongc> | @Ms2ger, Thanks, from RFC2045, seems "/" is mandatory |
| 08:15 | <Ms2ger> | Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it'll always be there |
| 08:18 | <yongc> | hmm, but the doc doesn't handle this. |
| 12:10 | GPHemsley | looks |
| 12:12 | <GPHemsley> | Yes, "type;parm=value" will eventually terminate at step 8.2 and return undefined. |
| 12:12 | <GPHemsley> | yongc: ^ |
| 12:12 | <GPHemsley> | Ms2ger: ^ |
| 12:13 | <Ms2ger> | Does the spec explain somewhere that indexing a sequence at EOF yields "undefined"? |
| 12:14 | <GPHemsley> | "Let sequence be the byte sequence of the MIME type, where sequence[s] is byte s in sequence and sequence[0] is the first byte in sequence." |
| 12:15 | <GPHemsley> | That's intended to imply that if there is no byte s in sequence, then sequence[s] is undefined. |
| 12:15 | <GPHemsley> | "A byte sequence is a list of one or more bytes, such that the position of the first byte and the position of the last byte are unambiguously identifiable." |
| 12:16 | <GPHemsley> | Perhaps that definition could be extended, if necessary |
| 12:16 | <jgraham> | "intended to imply" doesn't sound great |
| 12:16 | jgraham | hasn't actually read the text to see if you actually mean "unambiguously states" |
| 12:16 | <GPHemsley> | jgraham: Well, I'm just spelling out my intention of what I meant. |
| 12:17 | <GPHemsley> | jgraham: I'll leave it to others to determine whether it matches what I wrote. ;) |
| 12:17 | <GPHemsley> | https://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/#parse-a-mime-type |
| 12:17 | <jgraham> | Well based on what you have written in channel, it doesn't |
| 12:18 | <GPHemsley> | If it doesn't, then what behavior would be expected? |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | I have no idea. It seems to be entirely undefined. Maybe your printer is supposed to catch fire? |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | Or do you mean "expected by the web"? |
| 12:19 | <GPHemsley> | So, it's undefined that it's undefined? |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | Yes |
| 12:19 | <GPHemsley> | k |
| 12:20 | <GPHemsley> | Do you think the definition of "byte sequence" is an appropriate place to define it? |
| 12:20 | <GPHemsley> | (Because I use the construct a lot throughout) |
| 12:20 | <GPHemsley> | s/the/this/ |
| 12:20 | <jgraham> | It seems like you need to define it where you define the indexing operation |
| 12:20 | <GPHemsley> | dang, ok |
| 12:23 | <jgraham> | I mean you should probably define indexing notation in a single place in the spec |
| 12:23 | <GPHemsley> | yeah |
| 12:23 | <jgraham> | Or define a <dfn>element of</dfn> operation on sequences that works like indexing but without brackets |
| 12:23 | <GPHemsley> | https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28519 |
| 14:01 | <wanderview> | Domenic: I guess SharedArrayBuffer and friends is becoming more real... have you looked at it in relation to streams API? |
| 14:29 | <Domenic> | wanderview: yeah, seems like it would allow a .read(view) that modifies view in-place instead of returning a promise fulfilled with a new view backed by the same memory. |
| 14:30 | <Domenic> | that was actually the original plan (more or less) until we realized it would cause user-observable data races |
| 14:30 | <Domenic> | now that everyone's like "oh those are fiiiiine" then i guess we can do it, for SAB. |
| 15:36 | <wanderview> | Domenic: or are these races something the SAB spec hasn't thought of? |
| 15:36 | <Domenic> | wanderview: SAB is specifically designed to allow races to be exposed to the web |
| 15:36 | <Domenic> | because that's the only way you can compile C++ to asm.js |
| 15:36 | <wanderview> | Domenic: btw, in this update to the memory promise issue gist... can you explain how that lets the chain get dropped? it seems obervable .then requires the chain to be maintained: https://gist.github.com/wanderview/16f2839ba57514a625c4#comment-1435869 |
| 15:37 | <Domenic> | wanderview: there's no return, so no chain actually gets set up |
| 15:37 | <Domenic> | I think there might be a solution that allows both, have yet to test it |
| 15:37 | <wanderview> | Domenic: the last promise could be elided... but doesn't the chain have to exist? |
| 15:38 | <wanderview> | Domenic: I mean... if thats the case we could just collapse promises between the first and last |
| 15:38 | <Domenic> | wanderview: no? there's no way to create a chain if there's no returns |
| 15:38 | <bradleymeck> | there are also uses for shared memory, but it should be seen as a wart still |
| 15:38 | <Domenic> | wanderview: maybe i am confused what you meant by the chain has to exist |
| 15:38 | <bradleymeck> | shared locks and transferance is nice |
| 15:38 | <wanderview> | Domenic: oh... I thought you just did the if(!chunk) done() step... didn't see you dropped the other return |
| 15:39 | <Domenic> | yeah |
| 15:39 | <bradleymeck> | shared read locks would make me really happy |
| 15:39 | <wanderview> | Domenic: when I talked to bz about this issue he seemed to think the observable .then was the root of the problem... |
| 15:39 | <Domenic> | it might be |
| 15:39 | <Domenic> | I think there might be a way to use observable .then to collapse the chain "as you build it", but if there's not, then we'll just have to get rid of observable .then I think. |
| 17:01 | <MikeSmith> | we're on #extwebsummit for the little thing we're doing here |
| 21:23 | <MikeSmith> | https://mobile.twitter.com/ramunas_m/status/590241532613156864 |
| 21:23 | <MikeSmith> | is that true? |
| 21:24 | <MikeSmith> | "End of an era. Opera software sacks 70 employees. Desktop team in Oslo is pretty much disbanded." |
| 21:24 | <Ms2ger> | That was a long time coming, if so |
| 21:43 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I don't know, but I was there for two Opera "rightsizings" and each time the press reported the end of the company |
| 21:44 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: true |
| 21:46 | <tantek> | the press loves to report the end of things as well the amazing launch of some new vaporware |
| 22:40 | <aleray> | hi, in html5lib python, is there a way to avoid applying a filter on <pre><code> elements ? |
| 22:46 | <aleray> | ok I'm having a clue |
| 22:47 | <caitp-> | don't forget to share your clue with everyone else |
| 22:48 | <MikeSmith> | caitp-: y u no come to extensible web summit |
| 22:48 | <MikeSmith> | we are talking about custome elements |
| 22:49 | <caitp-> | i have a bad habit of missing events that i haven't heard of :( |
| 22:57 | <aleray> | caitp, basically it would look like: http://dpaste.com/06EZMCC |