| 05:54 | <annevk> | https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/180c3a639a0b1998596e16907c8c182c82a7f53a "Integrate changes from other location" |
| 05:54 | <annevk> | That is so messed up |
| 08:30 | <Ms2ger> | Domenic++ |
| 08:31 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: script cleanup? |
| 08:32 | <Ms2ger> | In particular, but also all the horrible js interaction crap he's been doing :) |
| 09:05 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, do you think setting this up would be useful: https://travis-ci.org/Ms2ger/dom/builds/128303192 |
| 09:05 | <Ms2ger> | To make sure PRs don't accidentally break the spec generation |
| 09:06 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: yeah maybe, should ask Domenic too |
| 09:06 | <Ms2ger> | Domenic, consider yourself asked :) |
| 09:06 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: he had some ideas about running bikeshed on the server instead, and also publishing snapshots |
| 09:06 | <Ms2ger> | That'd be nice too |
| 09:07 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: with this we could presumably also let Travis post a review URL so you can read the generated HTML rather than the diff |
| 09:07 | <annevk> | lots of folks don't like to read spec-HTML, and I can't really blame them |
| 12:42 | <annevk> | We should maybe rename tuple origin to network origin |
| 13:07 | <jgraham> | Got to love @mention spamming |
| 13:08 | <annevk> | jgraham: from wpt? |
| 13:11 | <jgraham> | w3c/encryptedmedia |
| 13:12 | <jgraham> | Someone deciced to @mention everyone in the w3c github org or something |
| 13:24 | <JohnMH> | That's just another flaw with GitHub, should honestly be handled with Bugzilla or with a mailing list and a thread per issue |
| 13:40 | <caitp> | a mailing list? ...really? |
| 13:41 | <JohnMH> | Yes? |
| 13:41 | <JohnMH> | A mailing list is the best way to perform threaded communication. |
| 13:42 | <JohnMH> | Unless you use the gmail web client, anyway |
| 13:42 | <JohnMH> | If you use a real mail client, you'll have a much better experience. |
| 13:43 | <JohnMH> | I would suggest Mozilla Thunderbird, and if you use GNU+Linux I would suggest trying Evolution |
| 15:04 | <annevk> | jyasskin: I wonder if some kind of non-HTML sketch of the model would make it easier |
| 15:04 | <annevk> | jyasskin: since I suspect everyone is getting lost in the weeds |
| 15:05 | <annevk> | jyasskin: also, for me personally I'm having a lot of other things at the moment so I haven't really put as much thought into it as I probably should |
| 15:06 | <jyasskin> | annevk: I've got https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sdRwvnG3lAk95RNPHXFSuWQeq9Rx8lgMKPvrmjQ-y4I/edit?usp=sharing, but it doesn't have a lot of examples. |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | jyasskin: I'm getting that impression from most other participants too, nobody has this really figured out, not sure if that means we should take a step back or some such |
| 15:07 | <jyasskin> | annevk: Yeah. We could set up a VC in a week or two, and I could undo the changes to Bluetooth that rely on having permission storage. |
| 15:08 | <annevk> | jyasskin: e.g., one thing that was brought up is privacy mode, but I don't think that is worth of consideration here |
| 15:08 | <annevk> | jyasskin: if we introduce that as a thing, that would end up splitting a lot of things into two effectively, I think trying to consider it here in isolation is very distracting |
| 15:09 | <jyasskin> | I think privacy mode fits into either of the last two models, but their complexity is needed even to capture Firefox and Safari at the same time. |
| 15:09 | <jyasskin> | (Firefox's and Safari's non-private modes) |
| 15:10 | <annevk> | jyasskin: so one good thing to do I guess would be to write down the requirements for the more complicated permission types, including the requirements coming from various browsers |
| 15:13 | <annevk> | jyasskin: it does seem though that a generic permissions API is not super great given that so far it seems a lot of them have very different requirements |
| 15:14 | <annevk> | jyasskin: but maybe there's some primitives we can uncover... |
| 15:15 | <jyasskin> | annevk: By "permission types", do you mean the values of the PermissionName enum, or the kinds of ways that browsers store permissions? |
| 15:16 | <annevk> | jyasskin: former |
| 15:20 | <jyasskin> | 'k, I'll make a document listing their behavior. |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | jyasskin: thanks, I still feel like I'm not really helping you, but I should have more time soon |
| 15:34 | <jyasskin> | annevk: Thanks for the help you have been providing. |
| 20:53 | <wanderview> | Domenic: is there a description of this spec language using "!" or "?" before calling a function? for example, "Return ! CreateArrayFromList(branches)." |
| 20:53 | <Domenic> | Heh, that's a popular topic today.. |
| 20:53 | <Domenic> | https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-algorithm-conventions |
| 20:53 | <Domenic> | seems like we should link all !s and ?s to there |
| 20:54 | <wanderview> | hmm |
| 20:54 | <wanderview> | ecmascript docs hurt my brain |
| 20:55 | <wanderview> | seems "?" means that the algorithm may abort depending on the returned result? |
| 20:55 | <wanderview> | and "!" are essentially infallible? |
| 20:55 | <Domenic> | Yep that's the idea |
| 20:55 | <caitp> | ? used to be written as ReturnIfAbrupt, basically |
| 20:56 | <wanderview> | ok, thanks |
| 20:56 | <Domenic> | Sorry for the confusion :-/ |
| 20:56 | <wanderview> | Domenic: how is a logic not operation written if we are using "!" for this? |
| 20:56 | <Domenic> | wanderview: "if true, false. if false, true" |
| 20:57 | <Domenic> | Usually you just end up saying "if x is false" |
| 20:57 | <wanderview> | ok |
| 21:13 | <wanderview> | Domenic: how can "highWaterMark" be undefined in new ReadableStream() step 7a? It seems to default to 1 |
| 21:13 | <wanderview> | new ReadableStream(underlyingSource = {}, { size, highWaterMark = 1 } = {}) |
| 21:14 | <Domenic> | wanderview: good catch, we didn't fix the heading when we introduced the different defaults |
| 21:14 | <wanderview> | Domenic: I'll write an issue |
| 21:15 | <wanderview> | Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/streams/issues/447 |
| 21:16 | <Domenic> | \o/ |
| 21:19 | <wanderview> | Domenic: is the ReadableStream spec pretty stable now? |
| 21:20 | <wanderview> | any more large changes in the works? |
| 21:20 | <Domenic> | wanderview: apart from piping, yes, i'd say very stable |
| 21:20 | <wanderview> | but we need WritableStream for that, though, right? |
| 21:20 | <Domenic> | exactly |
| 21:20 | <wanderview> | k |
| 21:20 | <Domenic> | writable/transform/piping still unstable, sadly |
| 21:21 | <wanderview> | the controller changes seem pretty extensive |
| 21:28 | <Domenic> | Yeah... the actual behavior changes were very minor, but Takeshi moved a bunch of stuff into the controller to fit your suggestion as to how to use the revealing constructor pattern to customize one class into doing two jobs |
| 21:29 | <wanderview> | yea... I think it will be good to avoid the two types |
| 21:29 | <wanderview> | just unwinding what that means for our first cut at streams |
| 21:29 | <wanderview> | I think I'm just going to update it all to the new spec language |
| 21:30 | <Domenic> | We have something that might be helpful... Takeshi updated the implementation for the new changes, just without any byte stuff yet |
| 21:31 | <Domenic> | https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/streams/ReadableStream.js&q=ReadableStream.js&sq=package:chromium&l=1 |
| 21:34 | <wanderview> | Domenic: thanks! although our self-hosting code looks a bit different |
| 21:34 | <wanderview> | may not be able to use that too much |
| 21:34 | <Domenic> | yeah that's fair |
| 21:35 | <wanderview> | for example, our self-hosted code doesn't support constructors directly :-( |
| 21:35 | <wanderview> | we have to bounce through c++ the first time to a constructor handle, etc |
| 21:35 | <wanderview> | good times |
| 21:35 | <wanderview> | anyway, I have to run to dinner |
| 21:35 | <wanderview> | thanks for the help! |
| 21:39 | <Domenic> | anytime! |
| 21:45 | <zcorpan> | still have 1h to answer the #HTMLQuiz y'all 📢 https://twitter.com/zcorpan/status/730891209019822084 |
| 21:49 | <Domenic> | I checked after my answer; I got it wrong :( |