| 00:11 | <MikeSmith> | botie, inform smaug____ I re-subscribed you to public-webapps |
| 00:11 | <botie> | will do |
| 00:12 | <MikeSmith> | if anybody else got kicked from public-webapps and you want to be re-subscribed, either lemme know or do it on your own through the e-mail interface |
| 00:15 | <jgraham> | Oh seems that I did |
| 00:16 | <jgraham> | I guess it would have taken a while to notice if I hadn't seen this :| |
| 00:57 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: want me to re-subscribe you? |
| 00:57 | <MikeSmith> | and yeah I reckon a lot of people are not going to realize they got kicked |
| 01:02 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I resubscribed myself |
| 01:02 | <MikeSmith> | k |
| 01:02 | <jgraham> | But thanks |
| 01:02 | <jgraham> | And I guess I wouldn't have noticed because I haven't done enough non-infrastructure work recently :( |
| 01:06 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I will try to make sure people here know that they got kicked but otherwise I don't plan to do anything else to mass-migrate everybody who was subscribed before |
| 01:07 | <MikeSmith> | I think the only people who got kicked were those who are members of the WG |
| 01:07 | <MikeSmith> | there are something like 900 other people subscribed to that list voluntarily who are not affected |
| 01:09 | <MikeSmith> | arguably the people who were members of the WG before should re-join the new WG, since it's largely just all the same specs |
| 01:10 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway I don't care much except like I said just want people here to have a heads-up |
| 02:20 | <Pygy> | Hello guys |
| 02:24 | <Pygy> | In the DOM API spec, specifically https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#dom-hyperlink-pathname and the corresponding sections for .search and .hash, nothing is specified about the encoding. |
| 02:25 | <Pygy> | Currently, browsers differ: https://gist.github.com/pygy/0dbef90505e42357b997 |
| 02:25 | <Pygy> | Specifically, some return the string URI encoded, and other not. |
| 02:26 | <Pygy> | (except Chrome who does both) |
| 02:27 | <Pygy> | Where should this be reported, assuming it has to? |
| 02:39 | <MikeSmith> | Pygy: probably https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues |
| 02:39 | <MikeSmith> | I doubt it's an oversight but who knows |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | sorry https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues if it's in the HTML spec |
| 02:41 | <MikeSmith> | but maybe https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues actually |
| 02:46 | <Pygy> | Great, thanks. |
| 04:59 | <botie> | smaug____, at 2015-12-11 00:11 UTC, MikeSmith said: I re-subscribed you to public-webapps |
| 05:01 | <smaug____> | MikeSmith: thanks |
| 05:01 | <smaug____> | MikeSmith: I guess also plenty of other people were kicked out from the list |
| 05:01 | <smaug____> | without notifying that they were being kicked out |
| 09:32 | <JakeA> | annevk: do you have a preference for Friday 22nd or Tuesday 26th Jan for the service worker f2f? |
| 12:08 | <annevk> | JakeA: 26 is somewhat better if I'll make it; also better for wanderview |
| 12:10 | <JakeA> | annevk: cheers! |
| 12:11 | <JakeA> | annevk: can Mozilla host? |
| 12:11 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: makes me wonder if the Apple folks even saw my email about web components 😟 |
| 12:12 | <annevk> | JakeA: possibly, how many people? |
| 12:12 | <JakeA> | annevk: I imagine <15. Are there other Mozilla folks you'd like there? |
| 12:14 | <annevk> | JakeA: don't think so, 15 seems doable, will check room reservation in a bit, SF or MV? |
| 12:14 | <JakeA> | annevk: SF |
| 12:33 | <annevk> | JakeA: seems like that worked, still not sure whether I can be there, but at least there's a meeting room |
| 12:34 | <JakeA> | annevk: cheers. I'll send an email to webplatform, see if anyone else wants to attend (but will stress we'll be working on low-level issues) |
| 12:34 | <jgraham> | Something, something, video conference, something, 80% of value 0% of cost, something |
| 12:35 | <annevk> | jgraham: bay area is in such a bad timezone for that :/ |
| 12:37 | <JakeA> | I'd argue 20% of value, but maybe that's just me |
| 12:37 | <JakeA> | Especially for a day-long thing |
| 12:37 | <gsnedders> | I think it also depends on what /exactly/ you're trying to discuss. |
| 12:38 | <jgraham> | annevk: Fair point |
| 12:39 | <jgraham> | It just seems ironic that we are trying to build this whole global communication medium thing and the main effect seems to be that everyone involved has to spend half their lives flying to San Fransisco |
| 13:45 | <yoav> | annevk: squashed https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/123 |
| 13:50 | <frewsxcv> | https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#partially-contained |
| 13:50 | <frewsxcv> | "A node is partially contained in a range if it is an inclusive ancestor of the range’s start node but not its end node, or vice versa." "There exists a partially contained node if and only if the start node and end node are different. " |
| 13:50 | <frewsxcv> | do those statements contradict each other? |
| 13:51 | <frewsxcv> | the former seems like 'a && !b', whereas the latter seems like 'a != b' |
| 14:09 | <annevk> | the latter is just a statement of fact |
| 14:14 | <annevk> | if /node/ is an inclusive ancestor of /start/ but not /end/, that automatically follows; it also follows from /node/ being an inclusive ancestor of /start/ but not /end/, afaict |
| 14:14 | <annevk> | yoav: okay, will take a look in a bi |
| 14:23 | <nox> | frewsxcv: What are you doing? |
| 14:38 | <frewsxcv> | nox: glanced at it in Servo and was confused |
| 14:38 | <nox> | frewsxcv: Heh. :) |
| 16:14 | <wanderview> | JakeA: is offline cookbook broken? content seems to terminate at the Cache Only header: https://jakearchibald.com/2014/offline-cookbook/#cache-network-race |
| 16:17 | <JakeA> | wanderview: shit, hm, let me see what's going on |
| 16:32 | <JakeA> | well, I've brought my whole site down now, so that's progress |
| 16:32 | <wanderview> | ouch, sorry |
| 16:32 | <JakeA> | nah, s'my fault |
| 16:35 | <JakeA> | wanderview: fixed |
| 16:36 | <wanderview> | JakeA: thanks! |
| 16:42 | <JakeA> | I'm cack at devops |
| 17:04 | <wanderview> | JakeA: does that mean "jolly good"? |
| 18:27 | <nikkibee> | https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-network-fetch what does step 1 accomplish? the only time the `credentials` value is used is immediately, in step 2 |
| 18:27 | <nikkibee> | beyond that, the only time it could come up again is in step 9, which specifically refers to the credentials flag |
| 18:29 | <JakeA> | wanderview: hah… ummm… yeahhh |
| 18:36 | <annevk> | nikkibee: just turns a flag into a boolean |
| 18:36 | <annevk> | nikkibee: in an impl it would just be a boolean without step 1 |
| 18:37 | <annevk> | nikkibee: perhaps we should just get rid of flags in standards and use booleans throughout |
| 18:37 | <nikkibee> | annevk: is a flag a different thing from a boolean? I figured calling it a flag was just a more generic term |
| 18:37 | <annevk> | nikkibee: they're identical for all intents and purposes, the prose is just different |
| 18:37 | <nikkibee> | gotcha |
| 18:37 | <annevk> | nikkibee: which is why step 1 exists since step 2 wants a boolean and not a flag |
| 18:38 | <nikkibee> | but the flag already is a boolean? |
| 18:38 | <nikkibee> | cause it's true or false |
| 18:38 | <annevk> | nikkibee: well, in prose, a flag is set or unset |
| 18:38 | <annevk> | nikkibee: it's not true or false |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | nikkibee: I've been thinking we should just get rid of flags everywhere |
| 18:39 | <nikkibee> | I think replacing 'flags' with 'booleans' would be better... if at least to remove technical redundancy like this |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | I'd accept a patch for Fetch |
| 18:39 | <nikkibee> | alright |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | Perhaps you could file an issue at least to remind me? I can make that change too fairly easily I think |
| 18:40 | <annevk> | Bit annoying for dependencies perhaps... |
| 18:40 | <nikkibee> | dependencies? |
| 18:40 | <annevk> | nikkibee: stuff that builds on Fetch and refers to existing names |
| 18:40 | <annevk> | nikkibee: like, HTML |
| 18:40 | <nikkibee> | gotcha |
| 18:41 | <nikkibee> | I'll file an issue, it might be annoying for dependencies, but I think it'd be a good change all around for clarity |
| 18:42 | <nikkibee> | at the least, it won't likely change anywhere without changing somewhere first |
| 18:46 | <nikkibee> | annevk: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/175 issue made :) |
| 19:16 | <nikkibee> | https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-network-fetch step 4 seems like it's got a lot going on for one step. pretty much every paragraph seems like it should be a different step. @ annevk |
| 19:19 | <annevk> | nikkibee: yeah... I don't like it either, but the requirements are kinda concurrent, if that makes sense |
| 19:19 | <annevk> | nikkibee: ideally the HTTP/TLS specification has some kind of abstraction for this and then the second paragraph and its steps could be a callback for instance, but that's not the case |
| 19:20 | <annevk> | nikkibee: so instead we have this slightly patchy landscape |
| 19:20 | <nikkibee> | I can see that |
| 19:20 | <nikkibee> | when do I run the last set of substeps though? |
| 19:21 | <annevk> | nikkibee: those could maybe be moved to become step 10 (with step 10 becoming 11) |
| 19:22 | <nikkibee> | that sounds good to me |
| 19:22 | <annevk> | nikkibee: still need to run in parallel though since we don't want to block on the stream getting pushed to |
| 19:22 | <nikkibee> | actually, in that case it'd be saying "run these after step 11" right? |
| 19:23 | <annevk> | nikkibee: well, "in parallel" implies as much |
| 19:23 | <nikkibee> | annevk: ah, so it could say "run the following steps in parallel"? |
| 19:23 | <annevk> | nikkibee: yeah, as a new step 10 |
| 19:23 | <nikkibee> | that would be much more clear |
| 19:23 | <annevk> | nikkibee: another issue? |
| 19:24 | <nikkibee> | sure! |
| 19:30 | <nikkibee> | https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/176 done |
| 19:40 | <nikkibee> | hey again annevk, https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-network-fetch in the last substeps for step 4, I'm not sure how to handle 1. If response's body is non-null, set response's body's length to response's body's payload body length. |
| 19:41 | <nikkibee> | where do I get the payload body length from? is it the same as the `Content-Length` header? |
| 19:58 | <nikkibee> | in step 5, in the conditions, "`Content-Type" appears in each- without a closing ` mark. that must be a typo- I can make a PR to fix it, since it's so tiny |
| 20:04 | <nikkibee> | hrm, searching the document says there's 405 (including the two I added) instances of ` |
| 20:05 | <nikkibee> | I'll see if I can comb through quickly and catch any, it seems there must be at least one other missing ` for there to be an odd number of them |
| 20:08 | <annevk> | Content-Length, but might be different in H2? |
| 20:08 | <nikkibee> | smarter check: `<code> has 192 results, </code>` has 191 :o |
| 20:08 | <nikkibee> | what's H2? |
| 20:08 | <annevk> | HTTP2 |
| 20:08 | <nikkibee> | gotcha |
| 20:09 | <nikkibee> | so, it should be in Content-Length, but where can I look up how to deal with it in H2? |
| 20:10 | <annevk> | HTTP standards? This is one of the cross-standard issues |
| 20:11 | <annevk> | Perhaps we should make a list and ask mnot to make things better |
| 20:11 | <nikkibee> | alright, I'll make a note to check that up again when I get to implementation |
| 20:15 | <nikkibee> | hrm I couldn't find the missing `, oh well |
| 20:16 | <nikkibee> | annevk: should I start my commit message with "Fixes #177"? I noticed you updated my last commit to do so, to link to the PR |
| 20:18 | <annevk> | No no need |
| 20:19 | <nikkibee> | alright |
| 20:19 | <annevk> | Unless you run make as well there are some tweaks needed anyway |
| 20:19 | <nikkibee> | gotcha |
| 20:20 | <nikkibee> | I hope I run into the third missing backtick... kind of annoying that I can tell it's missing but not where, haha |
| 20:23 | <nikkibee> | urk how do I git |
| 20:23 | <nikkibee> | I'm comparing changes on github, and it's showing this commit, and my previously accepted commit as changes |
| 20:24 | <nikkibee> | I've tried some stuff I was suggested before on updating my repo to the main one, but it's not working :( |
| 20:54 | <nikkibee> | annevk: I got it sorted out, and I have advice for preventing that issue in the future :) PR made! https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/177 |
| 20:54 | <nikkibee> | I wish it was a bigger PR for how much I had to learn about git to do that, haha |
| 20:55 | <nikkibee> | I'm going to be heading out now, so if there's any feedback I'll get to that tonight / tomorrow :) |
| 21:17 | <annevk> | Next week before the feedback will show up though 😊 |