| 01:55 | <rniwa> | kochi: yt? |
| 01:56 | <rniwa> | hayato: yt? |
| 02:13 | <MikeSmith> | does anybody know if bloomberg and zdnet use the same technique or library to implement navigation transitions? |
| 02:16 | <rniwa> | ugh... what a shit show :( wordpress.com breaks if we make deepPath a method because they assume it's an attribute :( |
| 02:16 | <rniwa> | annevk: ^ |
| 02:16 | <rniwa> | hayato: ^ |
| 02:16 | <MikeSmith> | what I mean is if you go to http://www.zdnet.com/article/xerox-scanners-alter-numbers-in-scanned-documents/ and scroll past the end of that story to the next, the navigation seamlessly transitions to http://www.zdnet.com/article/ai-selfie-drone-takes-13mp-photos-and-4k-video-wows-gmic-beijing-2016/ |
| 02:17 | <MikeSmith> | and if you scroll back up it navigates back to the URL of the first story |
| 02:17 | <MikeSmith> | rniwa: nice stuff, bravo once again for wordpress |
| 02:18 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: yup :( |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | rniwa: btw you are back in the US now right? |
| 02:18 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: it's great that all these web devs are rushing to adopt the latest stuff without ever considering the possibility of it ever changing... |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | I’m in Matsumoto this week |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 02:18 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: I am |
| 02:18 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: oh enjoy! |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 02:18 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: oh, right, your wife is from Matsumoto, right? |
| 02:18 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: enjoy your stay there :) |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | thanks yeah it’s nice up here |
| 02:19 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: I wanted to go to Matsumoto castle while I was in Japan but I didn't have a time |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | yeah we are at her parents’ place |
| 02:19 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: have you been to わさび農園? |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | yeah Matsumoto castle is one of the nicest in Japan |
| 02:19 | <rniwa> | in 安曇野? |
| 02:20 | <MikeSmith> | I know 安曇野 but not わさび農園 |
| 02:20 | <MikeSmith> | it is very close and my wife has a friend in that town |
| 02:20 | <MikeSmith> | so we will go |
| 02:21 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/大王わさび農場 |
| 02:21 | <MikeSmith> | it’s a park or 牧場? |
| 02:21 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 02:21 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: you can eat fresh Wasabi! |
| 02:21 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 02:21 | <MikeSmith> | nice |
| 02:21 | <rniwa> | It's pretty chill there |
| 02:21 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, will go for sure |
| 02:22 | <rniwa> | you can even make some わさび漬け there |
| 02:22 | <rniwa> | picking vegetables and wasabhi stems with nuka |
| 02:22 | <rniwa> | this is such a local topic LOL |
| 02:22 | <rniwa> | I feel bad for spamming #whatwg with it but whatever |
| 02:22 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 02:22 | <MikeSmith> | well it’s off-hours here anyway |
| 02:23 | <MikeSmith> | not sure hayato and kochi are the office today |
| 02:23 | <MikeSmith> | most people taking it as a holiday I think |
| 02:23 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: oh that's right, it's golden week! |
| 02:24 | <rniwa> | this whole web components related new DOM feature has been such a mess! |
| 02:24 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: e.g. s://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/241 |
| 02:24 | <MikeSmith> | no pain, no gain 😄 |
| 02:25 | MikeSmith | looks at https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/241 |
| 02:25 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah saw that |
| 02:25 | <MikeSmith> | I hope hayato changes his mind on that one |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | mailchimp.com is pretty widely used, and I think it is clear there are likely to be more |
| 02:27 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: yup |
| 02:27 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith |
| 02:27 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: the fact such a popular website got broken is a good indication that there are a lot more to come |
| 02:28 | <rniwa> | I don't really understand this whole discussion of wait & see if it's bad enough thing |
| 02:28 | <rniwa> | breaking any websites is bad :( |
| 02:28 | <rniwa> | the idea of "insignificant" number of websites being broken due to a new feature seems like an entirely misguided concept |
| 02:29 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, agreed |
| 02:29 | <MikeSmith> | wrong priorities |
| 02:30 | <rniwa> | it's one thing if the existing feature is broken between browsers but breaking a website with a brand new feature seems completely unwarrented |
| 02:33 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: there's also: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/23 |
| 02:55 | <MikeSmith> | rniwa: yeah gotta agree with wycats there |
| 02:56 | <MikeSmith> | hoping this thing of google pushing through with changes that break web compat over of objections from web developers and other browser projects is not a trend |
| 03:00 | <Domenic> | That one's different, because timeStamp never worked cross-browser anyway |
| 03:01 | <rniwa> | Domenic: indeed, it's a little bit more nuanced but I don't think breaking existing code doesn't make much sense IMO |
| 03:01 | <rniwa> | there are a plenty of APIs we keep around even though we added a new thing |
| 03:01 | <Domenic> | rniwa: well, it was existing code that was already broken in Firefox and in some cases other browsers |
| 03:01 | <rniwa> | Domenic: that's just a bug in Firefox. |
| 03:02 | <Domenic> | sure, but it gives us room to upgrade the DOM into something better |
| 03:02 | <rniwa> | Domenic: we can't use one broken browser as an excuse to break code that was working in many other browses |
| 03:02 | <Domenic> | Hmm, I guess I disagree |
| 03:02 | <rniwa> | Domenic: I don't like the whole idea of "upgrading DOM" |
| 03:02 | <rniwa> | Domenic: that's just a synonym for breaking code that was working just fine. |
| 03:02 | <rniwa> | Domenic: it's quite ridiculous IMO. |
| 03:03 | <Domenic> | Well, as I said, I disagree |
| 03:03 | <rniwa> | Domenic: one of the reasons Web succeeded so well is because it kept backwards compatibility unlike other platforms |
| 03:03 | <Domenic> | I think taking something that didn't work the same everywhere, and making it better, is a good idea. |
| 03:03 | <rniwa> | Domenic: yeah i guess we agree to disagree there. |
| 06:10 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith, Domenic: sorry, I had to get out of a cafe in Berkeley earlier. |
| 06:10 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith, Domenic: FYI, https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/242 |
| 07:07 | <smaug____> | which spec defines load event's special case for propagation these days? |
| 07:09 | <annevk> | smaug____: DOM |
| 07:10 | <annevk> | smaug____: 'A document’s get the parent algorithm, given an event, returns null if event’s type attribute value is "load" or document does not have a browsing context, and the document’s associated Window object otherwise.' |
| 07:11 | <smaug____> | thanks |
| 07:19 | <rniwa> | @annevk: it would be really useful to have cross-linking across HTML & DOM |
| 07:19 | <annevk> | rniwa: there generally is |
| 07:19 | <annevk> | rniwa: what's not linked? |
| 07:19 | <rniwa> | @annevk: or some sort of cross searching feature? |
| 07:20 | <rniwa> | @annevk: like... that question could easily be answered if load event's definition in HTML spec had all references including that one in DOM |
| 07:20 | <rniwa> | (or maybe it already has such a hyperlink?) |
| 07:21 | <annevk> | Well, the problem with events is that event names get reused |
| 07:21 | <annevk> | So there's no such thing as a "load" event |
| 07:21 | <annevk> | There's dozens |
| 07:21 | <annevk> | All with different semantics |
| 07:21 | <rniwa> | oh I see |
| 07:21 | <annevk> | And the special case in DOM applies to all of them, not just a particular one |
| 07:21 | <rniwa> | @annevk: what if we had full text search on specs? |
| 07:22 | <annevk> | rniwa: isn't that what a browser provides? |
| 07:22 | <rniwa> | @annevk: I can't do that across DOM & HTML though |
| 07:22 | <rniwa> | @annevk: as well as seemingly hundreads of CSS modules :( |
| 07:22 | <annevk> | Ah I see, a search engine solely for specs |
| 07:22 | <rniwa> | yea |
| 07:22 | <rniwa> | something like that |
| 07:23 | <rniwa> | @annevk: google kind of works but it finds all sorts of irrelevant stuff |
| 07:23 | <annevk> | I think with TabAtkins and plinss's linking infrastructure there could be something that finds all the terms and where they are defined |
| 07:23 | <annevk> | Still wouldn't really solve this case though |
| 07:25 | <rniwa> | @annevk: yeah, it would be super useful to have a W3C spec search engine |
| 08:37 | <rniwa> | annevk: yt? |
| 08:37 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger: yt? |
| 08:38 | <Ms2ger> | Ack |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | rniwa: yeah, I'm around |
| 08:38 | <rniwa> | @annevk, Ms2ger: I'm not sure if I'm reading the spec right but it looks like the new HTML spec text seems to indicate that document.currentScript is null |
| 08:39 | <rniwa> | if the script element happens to have been removed from the tree at the time of the script execution |
| 08:39 | <rniwa> | @annevk, Ms2ger: this is problematic for a script that gets momentarily inserted into a document and then removed |
| 08:39 | <rniwa> | because all browsers currently returns the "right" script element in this case. |
| 08:39 | <Ms2ger> | Do you have a test for it? :) |
| 08:40 | <Ms2ger> | I suspect this was intentional |
| 08:40 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger: can I send you a zip? |
| 08:40 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger: or would you prefer gist posts? |
| 08:41 | <annevk> | rniwa: I don't think that's true |
| 08:41 | <rniwa> | @annevk: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#execute-the-script-block |
| 08:41 | <annevk> | rniwa: currentScript is set to the script element, then the script is executed, then after it's executed it's set to its old value |
| 08:41 | <rniwa> | @annevk: well, the problem is that an async script could be inserted to a document |
| 08:41 | <rniwa> | then removed |
| 08:41 | <rniwa> | and then get executed |
| 08:42 | <rniwa> | @annevk: in that case, browsers currently return the script element while that async script executes |
| 08:42 | <annevk> | I see |
| 08:42 | <Ms2ger> | I prefer wpt PR |
| 08:43 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger: I don't have a cleaned up test case yet. |
| 08:43 | <annevk> | rniwa: so instead of "in a document" we want to test "whose root is not a shadow root" |
| 08:43 | <Ms2ger> | No hurry, but it would be nice to have one at some point |
| 08:43 | <annevk> | rniwa: file an issue? |
| 08:43 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger: definitely |
| 08:43 | <rniwa> | @annevk: will do |
| 08:43 | <annevk> | ta |
| 08:43 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger, @annevk: there is a subtle issue with that approach |
| 08:44 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger, @annevk: which is that then those script element that gets inserted and then removed before it gets executed will be running like an ordinary script element outside the shadow tree |
| 08:45 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger: I guess I can upload a PR anyway |
| 08:45 | <annevk> | rniwa: yeah, but since they can't leak shadow trees it seems okayish |
| 08:45 | <rniwa> | @annevk: hm... |
| 08:46 | <rniwa> | @annevk: but what if a script element was initally inserted into a document tree, then re-inserted into a shadow tree? |
| 08:46 | <rniwa> | (before it was executed) |
| 08:46 | <rniwa> | @annevk: would we then return null in document.currentScript? |
| 08:46 | <annevk> | rniwa: yeah |
| 08:46 | <annevk> | rniwa: it's root would be a shadow root |
| 08:47 | <rniwa> | @annevk: i guess that kind of makes sense |
| 08:47 | <rniwa> | you don't want to be exposing the script element in that case. |
| 08:47 | <annevk> | Yeah, otherwise it has all the problems of a normal script element in a shadow tree |
| 08:53 | <rniwa> | @annevk: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1161 |
| 08:54 | <rniwa> | @annevk, Ms2ger: right, okay, I'll adjust my test & code and put a PR up for wpt. |
| 08:55 | <Ms2ger> | Thanks! |
| 09:07 | <rniwa> | Ms2ger: here's a PR: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/2934 |
| 09:08 | <Ms2ger> | Thanks, will try to look later |
| 09:09 | <rniwa> | meanwhile I'm gonna sleep like a cat. |
| 12:19 | <annevk> | Can someone explain to me why in Firefox and Chrome, removing "overflow:hidden" removes the gap between the Test boxes and the red border: https://dump.testsuite.org/css/annevk-mobile-nav.html? |
| 12:19 | <annevk> | Seems like a bug of sorts |
| 12:23 | <iffy> | i am new in this channel |
| 12:24 | <iffy> | Anyone is new in web development |
| 12:24 | <iffy> | and wanna build website |
| 14:19 | <annevk> | jochen__: bit curious about https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-referrer-policy/pull/42 |
| 14:19 | <annevk> | jochen__: afaik all implementers have to implement from WHATWG HTML |
| 14:20 | <annevk> | jochen__: why put effort into a fork that's a disaster from the get-go? https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 |
| 14:21 | <annevk> | jochen__: seems like a waste of engineering resources |
| 17:38 | <Jasper> | Are there any other elements in HTML that can have link href behavior, other than a and area?\ |
| 17:39 | <Jasper> | People always forget area, so I don't know if there are any more. I couldn't find anything with a quick look in the standard. |
| 17:39 | <annevk> | Jasper: what kind of behavior are you looking for? |
| 17:39 | <Jasper> | annevk, the link behavior. Gets a pointing cursor, and when you click on it, you navigate to the href in question. |
| 17:39 | <Jasper> | Can style it with :link, :visited, etc. |
| 17:39 | <annevk> | Jasper: <link>, in some UAs, iirc |
| 17:40 | <Jasper> | Hm, really? |
| 17:40 | <annevk> | (also per spec iirc) |
| 17:40 | <Jasper> | I thought that was for stylesheet and icon references... |
| 17:40 | <annevk> | It's certainly not just for that |
| 17:40 | <Jasper> | I guess I don't know what the <link> element is for then. |
| 17:41 | <annevk> | Works fine in Firefox |
| 17:41 | <annevk> | <style>link { display:block; width:10px; height:10px; background:red }</style>.<link href=image> |
| 17:41 | <Jasper> | Huh. |
| 17:53 | <gsnedders> | annevk: that's pretty weird, but I guess unsurprising if you style link with :link |
| 17:54 | <Jasper> | I'm genuinely surprised it gets the click-y behavior too. |
| 17:55 | <annevk> | Anyway, those and svg:a are the elements that have this kind of behavior |
| 17:57 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016May/0002.html |
| 17:58 | <MikeSmith> | > Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate to make normative reference[6]to Fetch as the SRI spec goes to Proposed Recommendation. |
| 18:02 | <annevk> | Wendy should not have to work on shit like that |
| 18:02 | <annevk> | I'm really surprised she puts up with it |
| 18:03 | <MikeSmith> | she has to put up with worse than that :) |
| 18:04 | <MikeSmith> | I do too |
| 18:04 | <MikeSmith> | as far as our job responsibilities go |
| 18:04 | <MikeSmith> | but that one certainly affected a lot more people |
| 18:04 | <MikeSmith> | and held up a lot more things |
| 18:05 | <annevk> | If you've done amazing things like Chilling Effects, I'm having a hard time seeing how you can be comfortable doing this |
| 18:05 | <annevk> | I guess I should ask if I make it to Lisbon |
| 18:05 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, that does put it into perspective |
| 18:06 | <MikeSmith> | but glad she finds a way, because she is a major asset to have on the team |
| 18:14 | <Domenic> | this isn't exactly a ringing precedent; it looks like this will have to continue to be fought for every spec, based on examining what terms are xrefed |
| 18:49 | <annevk> | It is rather strange |