| 07:17 | <kochi1> | annevk: I pinged tyoshino@, maybe not have responded to the PR he should be looking. |
| 07:18 | <annevk> | thank you |
| 08:03 | <annevk> | jgraham: I got the "Subproject commit" stuff again on web-platform-tests |
| 08:04 | <Ms2ger> | git submodule update --init --recursive |
| 08:06 | <annevk> | "Unable to checkout '5a87b02cb86efecc541389704bbc7c555083e65f' in submodule path 'resources'" |
| 08:07 | <annevk> | Okay figured it out |
| 08:08 | <annevk> | This submodule mess... |
| 08:10 | <annevk> | User error, of course |
| 08:11 | <Ms2ger> | In the sense that cutting yourself with a knife that doesn't have a handle is user error :) |
| 08:14 | <annevk> | https://twitter.com/srl295/status/733315362687614976 is a little worrying |
| 08:15 | <annevk> | Has someone written the post yet as to why we need competition? It must be documented somewhere... |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | Whoa, due to the extension browserstack.com can even access local URLs, that's pretty nifty |
| 08:40 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: so I'm trying to figure out https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1130 for bz and I'm wondering about a good web-platform-tests strategy |
| 08:41 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: would it be okay to just create a branch + PR and commit my WIP there and then clean it up into actual tests at the end? |
| 08:42 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: main problem is that I don't know exactly what we want to require yet so at this point it's mostly just figuring things out across browsers and wanting to share those demos |
| 08:51 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, yeah, sure |
| 09:27 | <annevk> | Navigation is such a mess |
| 09:36 | <Ms2ger> | No kidding |
| 11:09 | <annevk> | https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/software_monocu.html and https://cryptome.org/cyberinsecurity.htm are I guess the pieces on software monocultures |
| 11:11 | <annevk> | Nothing really from a standards perspective though |
| 11:46 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: navigation follows the web platform theme of "the more you learn the less you know" |
| 11:58 | <zcorpan> | https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/7ff5b096d423bf5750463957aed69680368ed99e is there any data about how much prefetching <link rel=next> helps (or doesn't help)? |
| 12:25 | <zcorpan> | should origins also be USVString ? |
| 12:26 | <annevk> | zcorpan: yeah |
| 14:35 | <smaug____> | can an origin contain & |
| 14:38 | <wanderview> | smaug____: the domain cannot per spec rfc1034... not sure about other parts of origin |
| 14:38 | <wanderview> | I guess that includes host names then |
| 14:39 | <wanderview> | page 11 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034 |
| 14:39 | <wanderview> | smaug____: so I guess it depends if the impl allows schemes with & in them... I hope they don't |
| 14:39 | <annevk> | pretty sure browsers are closer to https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#host-parsing which does allow it on a first read |
| 14:40 | <wanderview> | annevk: I got to the rfc from the url spec here: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#hosts-%28domains-and-ip-addresses%29 |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | wanderview: w(new URL("https://test&test").origin) logs https://test&test |
| 14:41 | <smaug____> | aha, thanks |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | wanderview: that's not meant as a normative syntax reference |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | wanderview: more of a concept reference |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | hmm |
| 14:41 | <wanderview> | doesn't say its non-normative |
| 14:41 | <wanderview> | but ok |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | wanderview: file a bug? seems worth addressing |
| 14:44 | <wanderview> | annevk: https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/122 |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | ta |
| 15:32 | <jgraham> | annevk: For future reference it seems fine to push a branch to wpt without making a PR if you just want to experiment for a while |
| 15:39 | <Ms2ger> | That doesn't upload to w3c-test though |
| 15:40 | <jgraham> | Oh, right, is that the point |
| 15:41 | <jgraham> | Would be nice to have some other way of achieving that without a PR that is not ready and getting lots of updates |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | jgraham: also want to share and let others push tests in theory |
| 16:24 | <jgraham> | annevk: You can make a branch in the wpt repo rather than your local fork without making a PR |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | jgraham: I know |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | jgraham: PR makes for much easier sharing though, no? |
| 16:33 | <jgraham> | I guess? |
| 16:34 | <annevk> | jgraham: happy to consider other workflows, you won't get much spam from me either way |
| 20:32 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Submodules aren't user error. They're a deep, obvious design error that should be put to the torch asap. |
| 21:16 | <jgraham> | Describing submodules as an "obvious design error" seems uncharitable in the extreme. In practice they are not much fun, but the idea sounds perfectly reasonable and indeed is much like many other dependency management systems. |
| 21:28 | <tantek> | hearing Google I/O speakers trash IndexedDB API pretty consistently. What's the replacement? |
| 21:28 | <tantek> | and the legacy is pretty bad. Storage API, WebSQL, IndexedDB API |
| 21:29 | <tantek> | is it just that standards folks suck at storage API design? How many different attempts are necessary before we get one that doesn't suck? |
| 21:29 | <gsnedders> | IMO, the problem is everyone just wants an SQL database in practice, but nobody wants to spec it. |
| 21:29 | <tantek> | (e.g. Malte trashed IndexedDB in his AMP talk. Jake Archibald trashed it yesterday in his offlinefirst talk) |
| 21:30 | <tantek> | gsnedders: everyone? certainly not Heroku where you can't SQL. You can Postgres however. |
| 21:30 | <tantek> | I'm fine with accepting "Storage APIs are hard, let's go hacking" but still |
| 21:30 | <gsnedders> | tantek: ? Postgres is just a SQL implementation? |
| 21:31 | <tantek> | ah sorry misread as MySQL since that's the common "everyone just wants" |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | I still hear a fair bit of sadness that WebSQL is practically dead |
| 21:33 | <gsnedders> | from web developers, that is |
| 21:33 | <gsnedders> | IndexedDB is bad simply because it's a model people aren't used to dealing with, AFAIK? |
| 21:36 | <Domenic> | The API also makes it hard to do simple things |
| 21:36 | <Domenic> | People mostly want an async version of local storage |
| 21:36 | <Domenic> | Using promises or simple callbacks |
| 21:36 | <Domenic> | Not IDBRequests |
| 21:37 | <tantek> | Domenic: that is a sensible explanation. So ... Storage 2.0? |
| 21:37 | <tantek> | (2.0 means you don't have to be compatible, we learned that from XHTML ;) ) |
| 21:37 | <Domenic> | tantek: the problem is that very few people want to spend time on developing a new API that has no fundamentally new capabilities, and is simply a better API surface |
| 21:38 | <tantek> | yes, even standards people have limits of attention span / diminishing returns |
| 21:39 | <tantek> | so what's the current answer then? based on |
| 21:40 | <tantek> | "The [IndexedDB] API also makes it hard to do simple things" - I'm loathe to recommend it |
| 21:40 | <Domenic> | IDB + a library, basically |
| 21:40 | <tantek> | and rather suggest minimal use of Local Storage |
| 21:40 | <tantek> | Domenic, indeed, Jake suggested using IDB + framework wrapper around it |
| 21:41 | <tantek> | in his talk yesterday |
| 21:41 | <Domenic> | https://www.npmjs.com/package/localforage for simple cases, maybe https://www.npmjs.com/package/idb for more complicated ones |
| 21:41 | <tantek> | ok cool. thanks Domenic |
| 23:23 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: The fact that submodules mean your repo is basically guaranteed to be broken on first clone is a fundamental design flaw. There's an additional non-obvious command you have to run to actually get the repository in a working state, and there's no indication you *need* to do so. |
| 23:25 | <TabAtkins> | Like, if after a clone git spit out a message like "hey there's some submodules here, you might want to run `...`to make this shit work" |
| 23:35 | <jyasskin> | TabAtkins: If it's just an extra string `git clone` should print, that's not a deep design error. ;) |
| 23:36 | <TabAtkins> | I mean "this extra command you absolutely have to run if you don't want things to be broken" is a big design flaw regardless of whether the first command tells you to run it or not. |
| 23:41 | <nox> | TabAtkins: Can't be that hard, it's Git after all!!1! |