| 05:49 | <annevk> | Domenic: the new cancel approach is interesting in that scenarios where we currently reject can be compatibly upgraded to become cancelations |
| 05:50 | <annevk> | Domenic: that's rather nice |
| 05:50 | <Domenic> | annevk: hmm how so compatibly? |
| 05:50 | <annevk> | Domenic: well, unless they check the type of exception of course |
| 05:50 | <Domenic> | Ah OK :) |
| 11:28 | <MikeSmith> | does Edge have special support for <input name=isindex> thing? |
| 11:30 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: afaict they don't |
| 11:30 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 12:36 | <annevk> | Anyone know if anything but Fetch and XHR use the end-of-file tasks? |
| 12:36 | <annevk> | I need to rename them since I want to add a task post end-of-file and then that task no longer makes much sense |
| 12:36 | <annevk> | At least the name |
| 13:48 | <mkwst> | "end of end of file"? :) |
| 15:03 | <Guest_39743> | Allah is doing |
| 15:03 | <botie> | i already had it that way, Guest_39743. |
| 15:03 | <Guest_39743> | sun is not doing Allah is doing |
| 15:03 | <botie> | i already had it that way, Guest_39743. |
| 19:31 | <smaug____> | blink folks, do you happen to have usage data about EventSource in workers? |
| 20:15 | <mounir> | smaug____: let me check |
| 20:18 | <mounir> | smaug____: I'm afraid there is no EventSource data usage at all |
| 20:19 | <smaug____> | mounir: no usage data, or no usage? |
| 20:19 | <smaug____> | er, usage data |
| 20:19 | <smaug____> | ok, thanks |
| 20:21 | <mounir> | smaug____: if you think we should have this information, feel free to open a bug and CC me |
| 20:22 | <mounir> | it woludn't take much time to add some metrics if it can help |
| 20:22 | <smaug____> | requires me to log in to some google account. hard ;) |
| 20:23 | <mounir> | smaug____: do you think we should add the metrics in Chrome? |
| 20:23 | <smaug____> | mounir: it might be useful to know whether people use EventSource at all |
| 20:23 | <smaug____> | there was just a complain in webapps mailing list about Gecko not supporting it in workers |
| 20:24 | <smaug____> | but in general, there has been very very few bugs filed |
| 21:04 | <mounir> | smaug____: I filed a bug, will write the patch tomorrow if I have time |
| 21:07 | <smaug____> | thanks |
| 22:06 | <explodingcabbage> | Hi all. Curiosity question, motivated by recent very minor involvement with the HTML spec - how come the W3C and WhatWG ended up each having their own spec, and what obstacles are there to ending the silliness and reuniting them? (Links rather than full answers welcome.) |
| 22:09 | <gsnedders> | explodingcabbage: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#WHATWG_and_the_W3C_HTML_WG |
| 22:10 | <gsnedders> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#history-2 briefly touches on it too |
| 22:11 | <explodingcabbage> | does that still represent reality? My limited interaction certainly didn't give them impression that W3C's HTML team were trying to write a conservative spec that only included features with multiple existing implementations |
| 22:11 | <tantek> | explodingcabbage there are ebbs and flows with convergence and divergence. Unfortunately we are once again in a period of divergence |
| 22:16 | <explodingcabbage> | Also, if it *were* just a matter of WhatWG wanting a cutting-edge spec and the W3C wanting a conservative one to meet W3C recommendation requirements, wouldn't it still be possible, and sensible, to have the repos as proper forks that allow cherry-picking of changes? How did the file structure end up divergent? Surely that just makes life harder for both |
| 22:16 | <explodingcabbage> | sides? |
| 22:16 | <tantek> | explodingcabbage: that was the intent and the charter of the current W3C Web Platform WG is supposed to do that. However that is not the case and W3C's HTML 5.1 has gone "off the rails" a bit, see for example: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507 |
| 22:18 | <tantek> | explodingcabbage - the switch to using a different spec generation tool (bikeshed) caused I think a lot of the divergent file structure |
| 22:58 | <explodingcabbage> | wow, i got sucked down a rabbit hole there. never knew about longdesc or the great war around it |
| 23:06 | <explodingcabbage> | the current divergence is a great shame; the WhatWG spec seems to currently be better / more sanely maintained, but is largely ignored by ordinary web devs. Searching Stack Overflow, I find 1,366 results for www.w3.org/TR/html5, 39,119 for www.w3.org/TR/html, and only 122 for html.spec.whatwg.org. it seems that even devs who are diligent enough to check |
| 23:06 | <explodingcabbage> | things in the spec overwhelmingly go to the w3 spec and ignore the whatwg's. really, what the world needs is the WhatWG's spec with the W3C's brand name. I don't know what the path from here to there is, though. |
| 23:08 | <tantek> | explodingcabbage good questions. there are two approaches, ignore the W3C work completely (which as you site Stack Overflow, only has limited success) and instead stay focused on making progress with WHATWG HTML, or two, attempt to bring more sanity to the W3C's work. |
| 23:08 | <tantek> | I think it helps to have folks working on both approaches |
| 23:08 | <Domenic> | [Constructor(GamepadEventInit eventInitDict)] // is this correct, or is optional needed? |
| 23:11 | <explodingcabbage> | @tantek while I've got no skin in the game, from what little I've observed it looks like chaals is, individually, a source of a lot of that insanity and that getting him off the team somehow would be the highest impact thing anybody could do on point approach 2 |
| 23:13 | <explodingcabbage> | it was him who stirred conflict with the acknowledgements removal, him who quietly removed longdesc in the issue you linked, and my one attempt to contribute to the w3c spec resulted in this complete absurdity: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/516 |
| 23:16 | <Domenic> | There's a couple problems: actively harmful behavior, and lack of understanding of the spec they copy and paste from us. The first may be solvable, but the latter seems likely to continue forever. |
| 23:16 | <Domenic> | I think the path forward is to just make people aware of the situation, fix links, etc. Those StackOverflow stats are depressing, indeed. |
| 23:16 | <Domenic> | I blame Google's search results for this, personally. |
| 23:17 | <Domenic> | Google is really bad at searching specs. |
| 23:17 | <Domenic> | It's not just HTML, it's every latest-vs.-old-snapshot spec. |
| 23:17 | <explodingcabbage> | oh, god, RFCs are the worst |
| 23:17 | <explodingcabbage> | Google likes to give you the txt versions rather than the HTML ones |
| 23:18 | <explodingcabbage> | which is a huge problem, because the HTML ones have a list at the top of later RFCs that obsolete or update the one you're reading |
| 23:18 | <explodingcabbage> | but the txt ones don't |
| 23:18 | <explodingcabbage> | but since the txt ones are far more widely cited, people keep on reading the obsolete specs as if they're current |
| 23:19 | <explodingcabbage> | i've seen literally decade-obsolete RFCs being cited on Stack Overflow |
| 23:19 | <explodingcabbage> | so yeah, i agree, there's a more general problem that needs solving somehow |
| 23:24 | <jyasskin> | explodingcabbage: A nit: try not to call obviously wrong suggestions "insane". It's both likely to rile up the suggester and unkind to actually mentally ill people. Otherwise, yes chaals is being absurd there. :) |
| 23:30 | <explodingcabbage> | @jyasskin I was aware it was non-diplomatic, and was happy with that in that case. I considered being tactful for a while but would that really achieve a better outcome? I suspect chaals's decision was already motivated by a desire for conflict / to deliberately do things differently to the WhatWG, because it was so ridiculous an approach to take... and I |
| 23:30 | <explodingcabbage> | think that's better dealt with by making the absurdity very very clear and letting his colleagues quietly address it than trying to reason with him myself. If we becomes 'riled up' and acts obnoxiously in response... all the better. |
| 23:31 | <explodingcabbage> | Maybe I'm misjudging either him or the right course of action - I've had no involvement in this space before |
| 23:32 | <explodingcabbage> | But his take on that issue seemed to me like it could only have stemmed from a desire for conflict, which his past conduct seems consistent with |
| 23:34 | <explodingcabbage> | But anyway, enough of me talking about politics I'm not a part of and have no way to influence. It's all very silly. I'm off to bed; goodnight to all. :) |