| 04:13 | <annevk> | hsivonen: retrofitting Unicode on top of gbk, not sure why they thought that was a good idea |
| 07:25 | <davve> | I got referred to https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#imagebitmapfactories but can't get it to show (page stays at top) in any of my browsers. Ideas? |
| 07:27 | <annevk> | davve: that is now https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#windoworworkerglobalscope |
| 07:28 | <annevk> | davve: it was a mixin that we merged with other mixins that apply to Window and WorkerGlobalScope objects |
| 07:28 | <davve> | Excellent. Thanks. |
| 11:31 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: btw you saw https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=602925 I guess (can’t remember where I found out about it) |
| 11:31 | <MikeSmith> | = Measure how many pages are using cross-origin XHR with credentials |
| 11:46 | annevk | keeps looking for excuses not to work on slotting |
| 11:51 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, is "there is no viewport associated with the document" equivalent to "browsing context is null"? |
| 11:53 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: a display:none iframe has no viewport but has a browsing context, i believe |
| 11:54 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: hmm nope |
| 11:54 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: "If a browsing context is not being rendered, it is expected to have a viewport with zero width and zero height." |
| 11:55 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: so, i guess that's equivalent. except i don't know if shadow dom changes something |
| 11:56 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, ok, thanks |
| 13:21 | <annevk> | Okay, I did some work on slotting: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/288#issuecomment-210461414 |
| 13:22 | <annevk> | Review appreciated |
| 14:17 | <annevk> | rbyers: have you updated the specs yet that dispatch events that might make use of passive listeners? |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | rbyers: it seems that in order to dispatch such events you need to go through the event path and check the listeners for each node in the path |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | rbyers: I wonder if the DOM Standard should provide some kind of operation for that, to isolate the amount of listener inspection |
| 16:30 | <m4nu> | Hixie_: thanks for the input on the blog post, finally got around to responding to your comment (been busy) :) http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/#comment-29988 |
| 16:37 | <annevk> | m4nu: if you're only realizing that now you've been a little naive |
| 16:37 | <annevk> | m4nu: having said that, <picture> was done by a CG |
| 16:39 | <annevk> | m4nu: that kind of culture clash is as old as the W3C |
| 16:40 | <annevk> | m4nu: XSL-FO vs CSS, XPath vs Selectors, sXBL vs XBL 2 (although neither made it out alive in the end), HTML vs XHTML2 |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | m4nu: just like you can always bet on JavaScript, you can also bet on browsers |
| 16:58 | <m4nu> | annevk: I'm not only now realizing the power dynamic, not that naieve. I'm reporting that the way the W3C (and browser vendors) suggest how to get stuff into the Web Platform is largely ineffective. |
| 16:59 | <annevk> | m4nu: depends on who you're listening to I suppose, but W3C is a lot of smoke and mirrors |
| 16:59 | <m4nu> | annevk: Yep, and the blog post is reporting on that... |
| 16:59 | <annevk> | m4nu: WHATWG is much more straightforward and the advice the FAQ lists has been used with success |
| 16:59 | <annevk> | m4nu: sure, just saying it has been like that since forever |
| 17:00 | <m4nu> | annevk: I don't think WHATWG is really that different. In that, there are no smoke and mirrors and the power dynamic is transparent... but it's a really terrible power dynamic. |
| 17:01 | <m4nu> | annevk: and I think there's this narrative where people go around telling Web developers that "this is your platform, you have the power to change it" - and that's not true. |
| 17:01 | <laughinghan> | hey annevk the first "logs" link in the topic is broken, can we remove it for now? |
| 17:01 | <m4nu> | annevk: It /is/ true that they don't have to use browser features that they don't want to |
| 17:01 | <m4nu> | annevk: but it is not true that they have any significant amount of say over those browser features. |
| 17:01 | <m4nu> | and W3C keeps asserting that they do - and they don't. |
| 17:02 | <m4nu> | WHATWG doesn't assert that they do - and that's true. :) |
| 17:02 | <m4nu> | annevk: and that you and a handful of other folks (like me) know this doesn't mean that the vast majority of Web developers or participants in W3C know this. |
| 17:03 | <annevk> | laughinghan: krijn will prolly make it working again, but we could swap the order |
| 17:03 | <laughinghan> | thanks |
| 17:04 | <annevk> | m4nu: well, WHATWG has been saying forever that the buck stops with what browsers are willing to ship |
| 17:04 | <laughinghan> | also apparently you can link directly to http://logs.glob.uno/?c=freenode%23whatwg |
| 17:04 | <m4nu> | annevk: it's just a pretty terrible dynamic, and it's getting worse... and I don't think it's a good direction for the Web. I think W3C and developer advocates need to start being more honest about that. That's all. :) |
| 17:05 | <laughinghan> | how is it getting worse or a bad direction? |
| 17:05 | <laughinghan> | hasn't it always been this way? It got us this far |
| 17:05 | <annevk> | m4nu: I think in general web developers have a fair amount of influence, when they don't use shipped features, those features get removed |
| 17:05 | <annevk> | m4nu: and the problems they have are getting addressed |
| 17:06 | <annevk> | laughinghan: hmm, will have to wait for Ms2ger to get back so they can make me an op |
| 17:07 | <krijn> | annevk: will fix some things this Sunday, when I will be at that machine physically |
| 17:07 | <annevk> | \o/ |
| 17:07 | <krijn> | Can't reach it atm |
| 17:07 | <m4nu> | laughinghan: getting worse as in browser deployment figures show only two companies really dominating browser environments now. |
| 17:08 | <m4nu> | laughinghan: and no, I don't think it's always been this way - when the market has had more competitors in it, things have fared better. |
| 17:08 | <laughinghan> | m4nu: did it used to be more than two? |
| 17:09 | <laughinghan> | from my understanding, there was IE and Netscape competing, then IE and Firefox, then Firefox and Chrome (during this time IE was just playing catchup, it wasn't competitive), and now...what even are the big two? |
| 17:09 | <laughinghan> | Chrome and Safari on iOS? |
| 17:09 | <m4nu> | laughinghan: there was a time where Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla were competitive. |
| 17:09 | <m4nu> | laughinghan annevk: Don't want to spam the WHATWG channel w/ this discussion - if you have thoughts, you could leave them here: http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/#comment-29988 |
| 17:10 | <laughinghan> | since before Chrome was released IE has been purely in catch-up, it wasn't at all competitive |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | m4nu: IRC is easy, writing blog not so much |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | blog comments, even |
| 17:16 | <laughing_> | especially an 840-word blog comment |
| 21:15 | <zcorpan> | is ::slotted() the thing that was discussed at tpac if it should have one or two colons, and hober2 suggested three colons and i suggested zero colons? TabAtkins? |
| 21:15 | <TabAtkins> | Hahaha, I think so. |
| 21:16 | <TabAtkins> | Because it's an alias for other elements in the tree, not an element itself. |
| 21:16 | <zcorpan> | maybe i should push for zero colons again |
| 21:17 | <zcorpan> | or was there some reason that didn't work? |
| 21:17 | <TabAtkins> | Because all selectors need to start with some sigil that won't get parsed as part of an ident. |
| 21:18 | <TabAtkins> | Only tagname selectors get away with not having that, and as a result they ahve to be first in the compound selector. |
| 21:18 | <zcorpan> | it'll be a FUNCTION, no? |
| 21:19 | <TabAtkins> | Functions are ident-like. |
| 21:19 | <TabAtkins> | slot::slotted() works parsing wise. |
| 21:19 | <TabAtkins> | slotslotted() obviously doesn't. ^_^ |
| 21:20 | <zcorpan> | ah right. i had in mind you'd put a space there but maybe that's weird |
| 22:12 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, that would be a descendant combinator. ^_^ |