| 05:13 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: didn’t know you’re an iTerm2 user |
| 07:05 | <yoav> | jgraham: Hey! WPT doesn't expose ways to run something like Blink/WebKit's internals in a cross-browser way, right? The subject has come up in https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/j04BdFMfYxg |
| 07:22 | <MikeSmith> | yoav: what does “run something like Blink/WebKit's internals in a cross-browser way” mean? |
| 07:25 | <yoav> | MikeSmith: Have a non-Web-exposed API that enables you things like changing the screen density, etc |
| 07:26 | <yoav> | e.g. Some of srcset's tests in Blink/WebKit cannot be easily migrated elsewhere because of lack of control on these conditions |
| 07:26 | <yoav> | And the related blink-dev discussion was related to adding such an API for network state |
| 07:27 | <jgraham> | yoav: No, there is no attempt to provide a standardised api for that because it's very unclear that it's possible without agreement on the semantics of the backing api (in which case why not use that directly) |
| 07:27 | <yoav> | jgraham: OK, thanks |
| 07:28 | <jgraham> | I think there is likely to be some demand for a standardised test-only api fwiw |
| 07:30 | <yoav> | personally, I'd love to see something like that |
| 09:52 | <nox> | Is it me or https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-getelementsbytagname doesn't actually describe UAs? |
| 09:54 | <nox> | I see, Safari and Firefox disagrees on "Element in non-HTML namespace, prefix, non-ascii characters in name". |
| 10:16 | <nox> | annevk: Following https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/143, I think getElementsByTagName still contradicts UAs, or at least Firefox. |
| 11:50 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, you know if there's a reason BeforeUnloadEvent doesn't have a constructor? |
| 11:56 | <MikeSmith> | bravo wanderview |
| 11:58 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: I don't |
| 12:04 | <nox> | annevk: Any idea about my own question? Maybe there is an open issue I missed? |
| 12:09 | <annevk> | nox: what in particular doesn't match? |
| 12:09 | <nox> | annevk: http://w3c-test.org/dom/nodes/Element-getElementsByTagName.html |
| 12:10 | <nox> | annevk: "Element in non-HTML namespace, prefix, non-ascii characters in name" |
| 12:10 | <nox> | This pass on Safari and Chrome but not Firefox, |
| 12:10 | <nox> | and the spec seems to agree with Firefox. |
| 12:11 | <annevk> | nox: above you said the spec contradicts Firefox? |
| 12:12 | <annevk> | nox: the spec is intended to match Firefox, per that issue bz raised |
| 12:12 | <nox> | annevk: Sorry, confused myself. |
| 12:12 | <nox> | annevk: So the test didn't get updated per spec, is that all? |
| 12:12 | <annevk> | nox: I guess so |
| 12:12 | <nox> | Ok great. |
| 12:12 | <Ms2ger> | Though Aryeh tried |
| 12:21 | <hallvors> | This IDL array vs frozenarray thing -> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11 - is there some context here, like a bug arguing for removing array? zcorpan seems to want me to understand it :) |
| 12:22 | <nox> | hallvors: Following links leads me here: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/52 and here: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23682 |
| 12:22 | <zcorpan> | hallvors: the T[] thing was removed from WebIDL, so any spec still using it is broken |
| 12:23 | <hallvors> | ah, thanks. Didn't see the link to 23682 |
| 12:25 | <nox> | hallvors: No problem. |
| 13:31 | <nox> | Spec and tests for insertAdjacentHTML don't seem to agree either. |
| 13:32 | <annevk> | I wonder if the insertAdjancentHTML spec is correct |
| 13:33 | <annevk> | I looked at it briefly when working on insertAdjacentOtherThings and I remember thinking it had some bugs |
| 13:33 | <nox> | annevk: I don't think so. |
| 13:33 | <nox> | annevk: But the tests don't look correct either. :) |
| 13:33 | <nox> | annevk: https://github.com/servo/servo/blob/master/tests/wpt/web-platform-tests/domparsing/insert_adjacent_html.html#L59-L72 |
| 13:34 | <nox> | annevk: Am I blind, or child doesn't actually get a parent ever? |
| 13:38 | <annevk> | nox: parentElement.appendChild(child); |
| 13:39 | <nox> | annevk: Oh missed it. |
| 13:39 | <nox> | annevk: Ain't it bad style that it is itself in a test btw? |
| 13:40 | <Ms2ger> | That's kinda weird |
| 13:40 | <annevk> | nox: it's a little wonky for sure |
| 13:40 | <nox> | annevk: Well, someone implemented that method, |
| 13:40 | <nox> | and we have failing tests, |
| 13:40 | <nox> | so if tests or spec are wrong (or I think they are), I'll ping you. |
| 13:41 | <annevk> | it's really the responsibility of Travis Leithead |
| 13:42 | <annevk> | since it's part of DOM Parsing & Serialization |
| 13:42 | <nox> | Right. |
| 13:42 | <annevk> | I sorta think we need to put that in DOM at some point, or at least all the methods and such, but there's also only so many people to do editing work |
| 13:43 | <nox> | annevk: You'll forever be my go-to spec guy though. ;) |
| 14:15 | <wanderview> | MikeSmith: I should probably avoid twitter before coffee |
| 14:16 | <caitp> | the people really want xml https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/673 |
| 14:16 | <gsnedders> | nox: Travis has been working on bringing the tests in line with the spe AFAIK |
| 14:17 | <MikeSmith> | wanderview: nope, you should keep calling out BS and speaking truth to power |
| 14:28 | <wanderview> | MikeSmith: ironically they are about to roll out the removal of the UA check and redirect to play store |
| 14:32 | <jgraham> | wanderview: It seems entirely reaonable to me. You shouldn't get lots of free marketing for being at the forefront of web design if you are blocking browsers. But ofc when the people making the favoured browsers are the ones handing out the free publicity, it's easy to see why they don't give a fuck |
| 14:36 | <annevk> | I'd hope all this renewed interest in the web results in some more people being allocated to making the foundations more interoperable |
| 14:36 | <annevk> | Be it through tests or standards |
| 14:37 | <caitp> | there's renewed interest in the web? |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | caitp: I've no idea, I just want more resources to work on infrastructure |
| 14:42 | <caitp> | it only gets harder to keep interest in any of this stuff |
| 14:42 | <caitp> | that's the sad truth :( |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | Not for me |
| 14:44 | <jgraham> | annevk: Not really clear that foudational stuff is the reason that flipkart or whoever are producing single-browser sites |
| 14:45 | <jgraham> | (which doesn't mean that it's not important ofc, but it's unclear to me if it's the problem in this case) |
| 14:45 | <caitp> | maybe it's because making good experiences on multiple software platforms (and they're all different platforms, they're not a single coherent platform) takes too much time and resources |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | Yeah, flipkart seems mostly a case of new technology not having settled |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | There's always going to be some brokenness at the forefront |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | But that our building blocks are not entirely stable either, I mean, that can't go well forever |
| 14:46 | <caitp> | there's unfixable brokenness in the back too |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | I wouldn't say it's unfixble really |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | We've fixed tons of stuff |
| 14:48 | <annevk> | That's the core of what the WHATWG's been doing for a decade and a bit |
| 14:53 | <caitp> | I'd write about my perspective on how the web is really playing a key part in the ruining of the world, but it's not an audience that would hear it |
| 14:54 | <nox> | WHATWG reconciled me with the Web kinda. |
| 14:54 | <caitp> | but the way it speeds the delivery and increases the demand for cheapened crap, while reducing the value of people building that cheapened crap, is not a good thing |
| 14:54 | <nox> | caitp: The Web is improving, not regressing, IMO. |
| 14:55 | <caitp> | from whose perspective? |
| 14:55 | <nox> | Everyone's. |
| 14:55 | <caitp> | all week they've been playing on the radio news about a town experiencing like a 10 fold increase in teen suicides, and largely blaming the web, and they're at least partly correct in blaming the web |
| 14:55 | <caitp> | it's really a big part of the problem |
| 14:55 | <nox> | What. |
| 14:56 | <caitp> | it reduces the value of humans, reduces privacy of humans, reduces the value of human works |
| 14:56 | <caitp> | actually increases the cost of living |
| 14:57 | <caitp> | it's horrific |
| 14:57 | <nox> | I don't get your point, nor how it is related with what WHATWG is doing. |
| 14:57 | <caitp> | it has nothing to do with the WHATWG, it's just the web, as a technology, is really hurting the world |
| 14:58 | <nox> | Abuse and harassment are humans' problems, not the Web's. |
| 14:58 | <caitp> | it's not just abuse and harassment |
| 14:58 | <caitp> | that's only one side of it |
| 14:58 | <nox> | What's hurting the world is the feeling of impunity of some, and parents being completely lost about their youth's virtual lifes. |
| 14:58 | <jgraham> | It is unclear to me that The Web is important here in a way that is distinguishable from modern technology in general |
| 14:58 | <nox> | jgraham: Thanks, I wish I had said that. |
| 14:58 | <caitp> | well, the web is probably the most ubiquitous delivery method for that modern technology |
| 14:59 | <nox> | Seems like the Web you talk of is mostly social networks btw. |
| 15:00 | <caitp> | it's not, but they're also terribl |
| 15:01 | <jgraham> | I think a lot of the bad stuff now happens in ways that are not specifically The Web e.g. via apps. It seems like the general idea of a ubiquitous computer network has a number of unforeseen downsides |
| 15:01 | <caitp> | anyways, #whatwg isn't really an audience that is going to see that the web is part of the problem, I drank the same koolaid you all did |
| 15:01 | <caitp> | the web is the platform, it helps people communicate and find information, it's important, it changes lives for the better |
| 15:01 | <caitp> | but that's not what's happening :( |
| 15:02 | <nox> | I didn't drink that koolaid. |
| 15:02 | <nox> | I see the Web as the best way to procrastinate, mostly. |
| 15:02 | <jgraham> | caitp: I, at least, am receptive to the idea that a problem exists. But I think that pinning it on a specific implementation of the general abstract technology is perhaps naive |
| 15:02 | <jgraham> | And there are already multiple implementations of the technology, so it's not like turning off the web tomorrow would make a huge difference |
| 15:03 | <caitp> | I keep doing this because it pays for me to keep living, but it's going to result in me drinking a litre of whiskey every week, I'm sure ofi t |
| 15:03 | <jgraham> | Pre-emtively give up drinking? |
| 15:03 | <caitp> | I need a new job that doesn't involve computers :( |
| 15:05 | <nox> | caitp: What about working for IoT then? |
| 15:05 | nox | runs away. |
| 15:05 | <caitp> | even worse ;-; |
| 15:19 | <MikeSmith> | nothing wrong with drinking a liter of whiskey every week |
| 15:19 | <MikeSmith> | or even every day |
| 15:22 | <MikeSmith> | and it’s an interesting phenomenon when after somebody realizes they had a naive understanding of something they’ve put time into, they assume that others putting time into it have the same naive understanding of it, or ever did |
| 15:51 | <smaug____> | annevk: thanks. That was my first pr ever on github :) |
| 15:51 | <smaug____> | did I do something wrong |
| 15:52 | <smaug____> | (locally I probably did) |
| 15:53 | <smaug____> | (I need to figure out how to get my local fork synced. I'm totally no-ob in this stuff) |
| 15:53 | <smaug____> | I guess I can always delete the fork |
| 16:05 | <mathiasbynens> | zcorpan: have you found the Firefox bug # yet? |
| 16:05 | <zcorpan> | mathiasbynens: no, but haven't searched |
| 16:07 | <mathiasbynens> | zcorpan: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1094995 apparently |
| 16:08 | <mathiasbynens> | (I wasn’t aware of this bug) |
| 16:11 | <mathiasbynens> | → https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=449811 |
| 16:29 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/06/battling-bem-extended-edition-common-problems-and-how-to-avoid-them/?utm_source=html5weekly&utm_medium=email about this BEM thing |
| 16:31 | <zcorpan> | (from the comments it appears it's a love or hate kind of thing) |
| 16:31 | <annevk> | smaug____: I don't think you did anything wrong |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | smaug____: I couldn't merge it as-is because I needed to make some other changes and the final commit needs to contain the generated HTML |
| 16:32 | <gsnedders> | zcorpan: I'm getting bad gateway from that URL |
| 16:32 | <zcorpan> | huh. try https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/06/battling-bem-extended-edition-common-problems-and-how-to-avoid-them/ |
| 16:33 | <gsnedders> | wtf |
| 16:33 | <gsnedders> | works |
| 16:34 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: thanks |
| 16:34 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 16:34 | <MikeSmith> | hmm 502 Bad Gateway atm |
| 16:34 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: try the other link |
| 16:55 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: thanks |
| 16:55 | <MikeSmith> | seems .. complicated |
| 16:57 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: i guess it avoids thinking of other complicated things like cascade and specificity |
| 16:57 | <zcorpan> | gotta go |
| 17:25 | <smaug____> | annevk: is there some documentation about best practices how to create prs for specs? /me is obviously looking for some "contributing fixes to specs for dummies" |
| 17:26 | <annevk> | smaug____: the README of whatwg/html has some info |
| 17:26 | <annevk> | smaug____: README for most specs should have info |
| 17:26 | <annevk> | smaug____: if you lack some info, file an issue |
| 17:27 | <annevk> | smaug____: because that really should be there in some form |
| 17:27 | <smaug____> | well, I was hoping even more precise, like what kind branches one might want to use locally and such |
| 17:27 | <smaug____> | github has rather weak documentation itself |
| 17:28 | <annevk> | smaug____: oh, if you have write access to a standard always create a branch there with a reasonable unique name |
| 17:28 | <annevk> | smaug____: if you don't have write access, you need to create a branch on your fork and what you call that doesn't really matter |
| 17:30 | <smaug____> | github documentation just says one may want to use named branches, but isn't too clear about the reasons or whether it is actually required etc |
| 17:39 | <annevk> | smaug____: I think it's mostly so you know what the branch is about when selecting one |
| 17:39 | annevk | wonders if mven is mvano |
| 17:40 | <annevk> | Domenic: another idea I had with the whole icon thing is to have some kind of API that tells you what icon the browser would select, given some inputs |
| 17:40 | <Domenic> | annevk: that does seem really nice |
| 17:41 | <annevk> | Domenic: and then not alter the end points and just keep those as a single URL that you get out of the API |
| 17:41 | <Domenic> | annevk: I don't understand that latter part |
| 17:41 | <annevk> | Domenic: instead of making the Notification object more complicated to support multiple icons, just solve the icon selection thing in this new API and then feed the Notification object the result |
| 17:42 | <Domenic> | annevk: so what complexity would you remove from the Notification object? |
| 17:42 | <annevk> | Domenic: nothing compared to the current state, but we wouldn't add the PR that adds support for multiple icons |
| 17:43 | <Domenic> | annevk: we would still accept them as input, just not reflect them in the API, I guess? |
| 17:44 | <annevk> | That would be another way to go; I was thinking the Image Selection API would return the URL of the chosen image and you'd pass that along |
| 17:45 | <Domenic> | oh i see |
| 17:46 | <annevk> | I'm guessing <picture> and friends were before extensible web thingie happened? Anyway, while walking around with O today I figured there is some kind of API there that we don't expose |
| 17:46 | <annevk> | And because of that we keep copying the high-level pattern around |
| 17:47 | <annevk> | Which just creates a ton of API surface with not so much value |
| 17:53 | <Domenic> | Yeah that seems very true to me |
| 17:53 | <Domenic> | <picture> is a bit unique because it needs to be in markup for the preload scanner |
| 17:55 | <annevk> | Anyway, really time to make dinner, guess I'll post tomorrow unless someone wants to do it for me |
| 17:56 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: I'm not, that's just a good feature that's worth telling others about. |
| 18:06 | <mven> | annevk: hmm. nope. |
| 18:06 | <mven> | who's mvano? |
| 18:17 | <jyasskin> | mven: Michael van Ouwerkerk |
| 18:23 | <TabAtkins> | smaug____: I've been meaning to write up some stuff on that topic for myself anyway, so I went ahead and did it: http://www.xanthir.com/b4hf0 |
| 18:23 | <TabAtkins> | smaug____: My guidelines for how to easily work with forks on GitHub. |
| 18:24 | <smaug____> | I need to see what git does when there are merge conflicts |
| 18:24 | <smaug____> | TabAtkins: thanks |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: five is no longer needed thanks to squash and merge |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: actually prefer fixup commits to more easily review them |
| 18:40 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Yeah, that's probably true. |
| 19:46 | <coppro> | there is no way to use HTTP content negotiation to negotiate image size, is there? |
| 20:00 | <TabAtkins> | coppro: No. |
| 20:17 | <coppro> | :( |
| 20:48 | <coppro> | also is there a more recent spec for CORS than the W3C recommendation? By my reading of fetch(), it doesn't implement that recommendation. |
| 20:48 | <coppro> | (in particular, it requires the server to explicitly allow Authorization) |
| 20:50 | <TabAtkins> | It looks like Fetch defines CORS on its own? https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-cors-protocol |
| 20:50 | <TabAtkins> | but annevk ^^^ |
| 21:14 | <Domenic> | coppro: TabAtkins: yes, CORS spec is obsoleted by Fetch |
| 21:16 | <coppro> | cool, thanks! |