| 11:03 | <AutomatedTester> | annevk: hey, if I wanted to define something to not use relative URLs, is it sufficient to just saw "Absolute Urls with Fragment" or should it be 2 links for Absolute URLs and Absolute Urls with Fragments? |
| 11:07 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: hmm I think those terms probably need to say that the fragment is optional |
| 11:07 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: because currently it doesn't make much sense given the definition of URL |
| 11:08 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: maybe file an issue and maybe copy MikeSmith since I think he was involved when we defined these |
| 11:08 | <AutomatedTester> | annevk: well, a fragment is define as 0 or more url units |
| 11:08 | <AutomatedTester> | which is why I was asking |
| 11:09 | <AutomatedTester> | I will raise a bug. |
| 11:09 | <AutomatedTester> | https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#syntax-url-fragment |
| 11:11 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: the problem is that # is required |
| 11:11 | <AutomatedTester> | ok cool |
| 11:14 | <AutomatedTester> | bug raised and MikeSmith cc'ed |
| 11:53 | <annevk> | ta |
| 11:55 | <annevk> | yhirano_: Domenic: what is happening with upload streams? I feel like we stalled a bit |
| 11:55 | <annevk> | yhirano_: Domenic: is there some private discussion going on? |
| 14:24 | <Ms2ger> | No love for https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/465 ? |
| 14:53 | <Domenic> | AutomatedTester: if you're specifying an algorithm you should parse the URL with no base and then if it fails, it's not an absolute URL. |
| 14:53 | <nox> | Ms2ger: Aren't these already specified in DOM-Parsing? |
| 14:53 | <Ms2ger> | nox, that's innerHTML |
| 14:53 | <nox> | Ms2ger: Damn I can't read. |
| 14:53 | <Domenic> | annevk: I'm hoping to restart the discussion next week when I go to Tokyo... I don't believe there are any real blockers. |
| 14:54 | <AutomatedTester> | Domenic: we arent specifying an algorithm, just want to say it needs to be an absolute url |
| 14:55 | <Ms2ger> | AutomatedTester, and what if it isn't? :) |
| 14:55 | <AutomatedTester> | Ms2ger: then we say we must return an error |
| 14:55 | <Ms2ger> | Sounds like an algorithm |
| 14:56 | <Domenic> | AutomatedTester: yeah that is definitely an algorithm. |
| 14:56 | <AutomatedTester> | ok |
| 15:07 | <Domenic> | Ms2ger: should we also do outerText? I didn't hear about Firefox being forced to implement that one. https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/668 |
| 15:07 | <Ms2ger> | Domenic, I'd default to no |
| 19:52 | <jsbell> | smaug____: entries-api & callback interfaces vs. callback functions; why again did you prefer the former, other than "that's what blink does" ? (foolip@ has opinions) |
| 20:23 | <smaug____> | jsbell: just because of "that's what blink does" |
| 20:24 | <smaug____> | jsbell: in general Gecko isn't following the entries API if blink does something else. |
| 20:25 | <jsbell> | smaug____: Given that the point of entries-api is to document what's necessary for web compat, please let me know if you notice anything else! |
| 20:25 | <smaug____> | sure |
| 20:26 | <smaug____> | jsbell: it is hard to know what is needed for web compat |
| 20:26 | <smaug____> | which is why following what blink does is safer for now |
| 21:01 | <Domenic> | smaug____: the issue is that blink's callback interfaces are just callback functions |
| 21:01 | <Domenic> | smaug____: except handleEvent and nodeFilter |
| 21:53 | <smaug____> | Domenic: oh |
| 21:53 | <smaug____> | surprising |
| 21:54 | smaug____ | is trying to get webkitGetAsEntry() working in chrome, but it seems to return entries which can't be read, just give errors |
| 22:26 | <smaug____> | aha, https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=463089 is still happening on linux, or some similar bug |
| 23:12 | <jsbell> | smaug_____: Did you get it working/ |
| 23:12 | <jsbell> | ? |
| 23:14 | <jsbell> | smaug_____: Also, re: what Domenic said above, any objection to me changing them back to callback functions? |
| 23:14 | <jsbell> | Or jump in on https://github.com/WICG/entries-api/issues/3 |