| 12:51 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, why does https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html redirect to TR/? |
| 15:00 | <wanderview> | Domenic: our native promises are getting faster: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1152902 |
| 15:00 | <wanderview> | Domenic: and we're trying to push on the "ignored return value" optimization, but its tricky: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1156797 |
| 16:37 | <MikeSmith> | https://validator.w3.org/nu/ |
| 16:37 | <MikeSmith> | now with "s" |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: where are you hanging out this week? |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: Akamai office on Market street |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | Hotel is right down the road |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: ah you're at the TAG thing? |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 16:46 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: where you? |
| 16:47 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: Mozilla |
| 16:47 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: trying to get through my backlog |
| 16:48 | <MikeSmith> | 了解 |
| 16:55 | <annevk> | Hmm, the WHATWG list too many recipients filter is annoying, can we up the limit Hixie_? |
| 16:56 | <annevk> | Or get active moderation? Heh |
| 17:18 | <smaug____> | annevk: how do custom elements behave if you for example get a document from XHR, and it has some <div is="foo">s and then you append such elements to the window.document.body and window.document has "foo" registered as custom element |
| 17:59 | <annevk> | smaug____: I don't think anything would happen in that scenario |
| 17:59 | <annevk> | smaug____: but I'm not a 100% sure |
| 18:42 | <Domenic> | web platform test people: is https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/13bff083fba249ed260966bca65319b1b35d3f34/dom/traversal/unfinished named "unfinished" because we should not use it, or...? |
| 18:45 | <wanderview> | jgraham: ^^^ |
| 18:45 | <Domenic> | botie: tell annevk fun fact: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/24 seems to come from an awesome person implementing NodeIterator from scratch from the spec. https://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom/pull/1092 |
| 18:45 | <botie> | Domenic: i'm not following you... |
| 18:45 | <Domenic> | botie: inform annevk fun fact: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/24 seems to come from an awesome person implementing NodeIterator from scratch from the spec. https://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom/pull/1092 |
| 18:45 | <botie> | will do |
| 18:46 | <Domenic> | wanderview: (reading scrollback) oh awesome! Wow that [IsThenMethod] is... I feel bad for causing that. |
| 18:49 | <wanderview> | Domenic: I think that particular nuance went over my head |
| 18:57 | <trevnorris> | Domenic: is it part of the spec to not be able to call super.call() in a constructor()? |
| 18:57 | <Domenic> | trevnorris: you should be able to, after you do super() at least |
| 18:58 | <trevnorris> | Domenic: hm. well I wanted to call super.call() in place of super(). |
| 18:59 | <Domenic> | trevnorris: can't do that. A class isn't initialized until its super() is called. |
| 18:59 | <Domenic> | trevnorris: if you want to return something besides whta the superclass allocates then you have to use return-override: var obj = {}; obj.prop = "bar"; return obj; |
| 19:00 | <caitp> | hmm, I'm not sure |
| 19:00 | <caitp> | you'd have problems if the receiver needed to be used for any SuperProperty |
| 19:00 | <Domenic> | trevnorris: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/super-on-class-that-extends |
| 19:00 | <caitp> | but I'm not sure it should throwin all cases |
| 19:00 | <trevnorris> | Domenic: sure. I was just wondering if there was a way in the immediate future (since io.js 2 won't have restful arguments or the spread operator) to get around doing class constructors with variadic arguments. |
| 19:01 | <caitp> | as implemented in v8, super.call() won't work though |
| 19:01 | <caitp> | you can't really refer to `super` by itself |
| 19:01 | <caitp> | and it's not really an alias for the constructor function |
| 19:01 | <Domenic> | trevnorris: yeah, nothing besides switch :-/. Or just assume that 10 arguments is enough for anyone so you can do super(arguments[0], arguments[1], arguments[2], ~~~) |
| 19:01 | Domenic | still thinks `this = new super()` avoided all the confusion. |
| 19:02 | <trevnorris> | hahaha. awesome. hopefully none of my constructors would require 10 arguments anyway. :P |
| 19:03 | <Domenic> | trevnorris: it's really interesting how you're the first person i've seen bring this up. it's so obvious that there's a dependence here but i've never seen it enunciated before. i feel bad we didn't realize and try harder to align shipping schedules. |
| 19:03 | <trevnorris> | caitp: yeah. I see the issue w/ using super.call(). just have this dilemma ATM w/ partial feature implementation. :) |
| 19:03 | <caitp> | well, spreadcalls are implemented, they're just very slow :( |
| 19:03 | <caitp> | or at least, about on par with traceur |
| 19:04 | <caitp> | really hard to optimizethose dynamic argument counts :l |
| 19:04 | <trevnorris> | Domenic: heh. no worries. there are a ton of features going in. i'm surprised things have kept as aligned as they have. :) |
| 19:05 | <trevnorris> | caitp: true. and w/ all the new features i'm sure the V8 team has their hands full trying to optimize all the things. |
| 19:06 | <caitp> | i seem to have my hands full deoptimizing all the things |
| 19:32 | <jgraham> | Domenic: No idea |
| 19:32 | <jgraham> | Domenic: Looking at the tests, they appear to not be in testharness format |
| 19:33 | <jgraham> | So I guess they're unfinished in the sene of "broken" |
| 19:33 | <Domenic> | jgraham: ah right, that is a giveaway. thanks. |
| 20:06 | <trevnorris> | caitp: hehe. i have wanted to be a fly on the wall in the V8 meetings as they discuss how they're going to implement all these new features while not sacrificing performance. |
| 20:37 | <annevk> | Hmm, kind of sad that service workers too will require some way to opt into modules |
| 20:37 | <botie> | annevk, at 2015-04-21 18:45 UTC, Domenic said: fun fact: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/24 seems to come from an awesome person implementing NodeIterator from scratch from the spec. https://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom/pull/1092 |
| 20:38 | <annevk> | Domenic: how's Munich? |
| 20:38 | <Domenic> | annevk: not there yet, going after the F2F friday |
| 20:39 | <annevk> | oh I see, so you're actually here in SF |
| 20:39 | <Domenic> | annevk: nope, i'm still in nyc, flying out thursday night |
| 20:39 | <annevk> | oh right, no more TAG for you |
| 20:43 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: I now get "FATAL ERROR: No 'idl' refs found for 'normalize'." |
| 21:11 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Yeah, I've got a PR for you. There were a few errors exposed by the new code. |
| 21:12 | <TabAtkins> | Okay, submitted. |
| 21:36 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: thanks, will take a look in a bit |
| 21:53 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Yeah, put it together yesterday, but ran out of power before I could PR it. ^_^ |
| 21:53 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: so this still doesn't really work |
| 21:54 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: I got some merge conflict |
| 21:54 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: from your commits I was able to get a bit further though |
| 21:54 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: current complaint is "FATAL ERROR: No 'propdesc' refs found for 'example'. " |
| 21:54 | <TabAtkins> | I fixed that too, hm. Maybe I didn't successfully push? GH was having some service issues yesterday. |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | one sec. |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | Or you can manually fix - there's an example with some JS strings using single quotes. |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | You can either fix those, or turn off the CSS markup shorthands entirely. |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | fix = turn them into double quotes |
| 21:56 | <Domenic> | why ... why can't you use single quotes in your JS? |
| 21:56 | <TabAtkins> | turn off = Add "Markup Shorthands: css no". |
| 21:56 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: You can't reliably use single quotes, because they're used in some of the CSS markup shorthands. This doesn't matter if the code is in a <pre>, <script>, or <style>, but the ones in question are in a <code>. |
| 21:57 | <annevk> | Now I get a stacktrace... |
| 21:57 | <TabAtkins> | And <code> isn't "opaque" to Bikeshed. |
| 21:57 | <annevk> | "UnboundLocalError: local variable 'printableSpec' referenced before assignment" |
| 21:57 | <TabAtkins> | Ahahaha, one sec, I'm a dummy. |
| 21:57 | <TabAtkins> | Fixed. |
| 22:25 | <annevk> | Domenic: I wish the GitHub client exposed --author |
| 22:25 | <Domenic> | annevk: aww it doesn't? :( |
| 22:25 | <annevk> | I wonder why GitHub for Mac is not on GitHub itself |
| 22:26 | <Domenic> | annevk: you can probably use the client then just do `git commit --amend --author...` |
| 22:26 | <Domenic> | (before pushing) |
| 22:26 | <annevk> | Domenic: it couples commit and push these days, but maybe that can be changed |
| 22:26 | <TabAtkins> | Or fuck it and do it after pushing, if you think that maybe other people haven't pulled. ^_^ |
| 22:26 | Domenic | eyes TabAtkins suspiciously |
| 22:27 | <TabAtkins> | Listen man, I'm a rebel. I do what I want. |
| 22:27 | <Domenic> | woo {{s gone |
| 22:28 | <TabAtkins> | Yay! |
| 22:28 | annevk | emails support⊙gc |
| 22:28 | <TabAtkins> | Now to deal with biblio issues! |
| 22:28 | <annevk> | Wait, you can't change a commit after pushing? |
| 22:28 | <Domenic> | you can but it's frowned upon |
| 22:28 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Well, you can do whatever you want. But if other people have pulled, and you alter history, they'll have conflicts when they pull again. |
| 22:29 | <annevk> | o_O |
| 22:29 | <TabAtkins> | They'll have to manage that themselves, which is frustrating. |
| 22:29 | <TabAtkins> | Don't alter history, bro. |
| 22:29 | <TabAtkins> | Didn't you watch Back To The Future? |
| 22:30 | <TabAtkins> | You push commits 1, 2, and 3. They pull. Then you alter history and push, so the repo shows 1, 2, and 3a. They pull. Now there's a conflict, because their local history says 3 is the HEAD, but 3 doesn't show up in the remote history at all anymore. |
| 22:30 | <TabAtkins> | They've gotta manually checkout 2, *then* merge in the remote history, so they can go to 3a properly. |
| 22:43 | <jamesr___> | non-fast-forward pushes are evil |
| 22:47 | <jgraham> | Well github is designed all around encouraging them |
| 22:48 | <jgraham> | See, for example, the number of people that push each new commit to a PR as a --amend |
| 22:49 | <jgraham> | That's pure GH failure, because it should clearly have a "squash and merge" option |
| 22:50 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: in Notifications API I get "FATAL ERROR: Couldn't find target anchor dom-notification-notification: " |
| 22:51 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: Bikeshed seems very unstable |
| 23:02 | annevk | finds a fix |
| 23:05 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: I didn't even realize Notifications was on Bikeshed. |
| 23:05 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: And the word you're looking for is "actively maintained" or "living standard". |
| 23:06 | <annevk> | A living standard doesn't break backcompat lightly though |
| 23:06 | <annevk> | even though its detractors like to use that as an argument |
| 23:07 | <JoWie> | annevk: hey |
| 23:07 | <annevk> | hey |
| 23:07 | <JoWie> | I found another issue in the node iterator removing steps |
| 23:07 | <JoWie> | (that PR was mine) |
| 23:08 | <JoWie> | point 3 says: "Set the referenceNode attribute to first node preceding oldPreviousSibling, if oldPreviousSibling is non-null," |
| 23:09 | <JoWie> | i think the intent is to set it to the preceding of where the removed node was |
| 23:09 | <JoWie> | this matches the test |
| 23:09 | <JoWie> | what would be a good way to formulate this? |
| 23:09 | <JoWie> | I was thinking something like "Set the referenceNode attribute to the last descendant in tree order of oldPreviousSibling, ..." |
| 23:10 | <TabAtkins> | Back-compat is nice, yes, but it's way more important for standards than for standards-development tools. ^_^ |
| 23:12 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Ah, I see the error. Yeah, that was due to a new check. I won't apologize for adding things that make specs better, which old specs might violate because it wasn't previously checked. |
| 23:13 | <annevk> | JoWie: isn't that what preceding means? |
| 23:13 | <TabAtkins> | (I'm gonna tweak it a bit, but you can probably use `lt="Notification()"` to link to things - whenever it's unambiguous, you should be able to omit the arguments from the linking text of a method link. If you find an exception, please let me know.) |
| 23:13 | <annevk> | I see |
| 23:13 | <JoWie> | annevk: it says preceding of oldPreviousSibling |
| 23:14 | <JoWie> | which is oldPreviousSibling.previousSibling.lastChild.lastChild (until not null) |
| 23:14 | <JoWie> | but what you need it oldPreviousSibling.lastChild.lastChild etc |
| 23:14 | <annevk> | Hmm yes |
| 23:16 | <annevk> | That is somewhat annoying, oldPreviousSibling might not have any descendants |
| 23:16 | <annevk> | So I guess that would need to be more elaborate overall... |
| 23:18 | <JoWie> | "inclusive descendant"? |
| 23:19 | <JoWie> | which exists |
| 23:31 | <JoWie> | anyway bedankt, i gotta sleep |
| 23:36 | <annevk> | graag gedaan |