| 04:11 | <wycats> | some people have asked: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/270 |
| 04:11 | <wycats> | finally posted |
| 04:11 | <wycats> | annevk: ^ |
| 04:11 | <wycats> | if smaug pops around, he was asking about it too |
| 06:09 | <MikeSmith> | botie, inform smaug____ wycats: some people have asked: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/270 if smaug pops around, he was asking about it too |
| 06:09 | <botie> | will do |
| 06:12 | <wycats> | :) |
| 06:12 | <wycats> | bedtime for me |
| 07:14 | <annevk> | wycats++ |
| 08:32 | <Ms2ger> | |<html version="5.0"> |
| 08:33 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: we can pat ourselves on the back for going with half of the idea |
| 08:42 | <MikeSmith> | ? |
| 08:43 | MikeSmith | doesn’t understand that |<html version="5.0"> reference |
| 08:43 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: zcorpan tweeted a link about how he came up with <!doctype html> |
| 08:43 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: that proposal also contained a proposal for <html version="5.0"> |
| 08:44 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 08:44 | <zcorpan> | clearly it was necessary to specify the version... good thing Hixie knew better :-) |
| 08:45 | <annevk> | zcorpan: it's also interesting how the doctype bit included justification and the version thing was just like, well, that's always been there |
| 08:46 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 10:07 | <annevk> | zcorpan: https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/9ac1071abe7fca185604b56b89cb969ea34e39db must have been... |
| 10:08 | <annevk> | Somewhat surprised I didn't spot that while reviewing |
| 10:08 | <annevk> | Guess I just ignored it as noise |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | Which is somewhat disconcerting as that would be a way to comprise the security... |
| 10:50 | <kochi> | smaug____ ? |
| 10:51 | <kochi> | Can we have a chance to have VC or something to chat about iframe/history thing? |
| 10:53 | <smaug____> | kochi: perhaps, though I'm not sure why that would be useful |
| 10:54 | <smaug____> | random note, it seems like HTML spec's session history part is rather bogus, not following what implementations do |
| 10:55 | <kochi> | smaug____: I just commented on the thread, and hope we could move forward. |
| 10:55 | <kochi> | where is it, specifically? |
| 10:56 | <smaug____> | though, spec being bogus doesn't affect to this particular issue |
| 10:56 | <annevk> | kochi: where is what? |
| 10:56 | <kochi> | where is the bogus part of session history? |
| 10:56 | <smaug____> | it is wrong in that it uses joint session history for browsing contexts, yet browsers seem to have transaction list of session history entry trees |
| 10:57 | <annevk> | that is a lot of words |
| 10:57 | <smaug____> | :) |
| 10:58 | <smaug____> | annevk: kochi: forwarded you an email about this |
| 10:58 | <kochi> | I'm not sure other implementations, but Chrome/Blink stores frame-tree -like history as a node for joint session history. |
| 10:58 | <smaug____> | but anyhow, that doesn't affect to the shadow DOM issue |
| 10:59 | <smaug____> | I'm hoping Servo folks will help here to fix the issues in the spec |
| 11:00 | <kochi> | okay, thanks for forwarding the mail. |
| 11:00 | <annevk> | Yeah, I briefly spoke to someone from Servo about this and they seemed happy to file issues |
| 11:01 | <annevk> | Just needed a little encouragement |
| 11:01 | <annevk> | I think the fact that standards are just like other software projects hasn't entirely hit home just yet |
| 11:05 | <kochi> | so the fact is that we haven't come up with a good way to separate the history list, as I wrote in the comment. |
| 11:08 | <smaug____> | we could just have a separate session history and not show the shadow history in the UI |
| 11:08 | <kochi> | oops, the comment is not posted...? |
| 11:08 | <kochi> | okay, posted :) |
| 11:08 | <smaug____> | I need to find some food |
| 11:08 | <smaug____> | back later |
| 11:09 | <kochi> | ooh... I have to go home soon too... talk to you later. |
| 11:09 | <zcorpan> | annevk: could the linter maybe fail if new files are added (other than in demos, fonts, images) |
| 11:09 | <annevk> | zcorpan: yeah maybe |
| 11:10 | <kochi> | for the context, smaug____ and I are talking about https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/184 |
| 11:10 | <annevk> | hmm food |
| 11:11 | <annevk> | kochi: I'm sorry I don't have more input; I generally agree with smaug____ we should preserve encapsulation since that's a goal, but I don't really know how to achieve it properly here since I don't know enough about session history yet |
| 11:12 | <kochi> | annevk: yeah, we are not against having encapsulation, but rather thinking about implementation complexity and breaking user expectation about UI history back/forward. |
| 11:13 | <kochi> | history API is broken in the first place, I'd say :) |
| 11:14 | <kochi> | but I also have to admit that it is the way how web has worked so far. |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | Sure, but if we break the promise of shadow trees the moment you use <iframe>, we might get some issues too down the road |
| 11:24 | <kochi> | Yeah, like https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/763 (link target should not bypass shadow boundary) ideally I'd hope history.go() outside shadow won't disturb shadow trees... |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | hsivonen: https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/pulls first two PRs are awaiting review |
| 15:22 | <Ms2ger> | hayato, ! |
| 15:22 | <Ms2ger> | hayato, you broke travis: https://travis-ci.org/w3c/web-platform-tests/builds/138874200 |
| 15:43 | MikeSmith | notices a typo he made in that lint message |
| 17:14 | <tobie> | TabAtkins: just forced Specref to use https for all w3c links. LMK if you bump into issues. |
| 17:19 | annevk | is getting pretty close to the point where he can refactor document creation |
| 17:19 | <annevk> | Hopefully I won't regress all the things |
| 17:21 | <tobie> | annevk: Thinking the same thing about my https upgrade. :) |
| 17:24 | <annevk> | tobie: but at least it'll be secure |
| 17:24 | <annevk> | tobie: whereas this... |
| 17:24 | <tobie> | :D |
| 17:40 | <TabAtkins> | tobie: Should be fine; Bikeshed is pretty agnostic about the biblio data. It mostly just cares about the keys, and just spams the url into markup without looking at it. |
| 17:41 | <tobie> | TabAtkins: yeah, that was my impression also. |
| 21:15 | <smaug____> | hmm, reviews... do webkit or blink (or other large open source project) folks somehow ensure reviewing is spread somewhat evenly between reviewers |
| 21:21 | <jsbell> | smaug____: for blink, not via formal process (other than the review tool suggesting potential reviewers randomly from a per-directory OWNERS list). We do end up with review requests piling up on particular reviewers, who are either particularly responsive or the only experts in a part of the codebase. And then we may suggest spreading the work around. |