| 12:46 | <zcorpan> | https://wpt.fyi/results/webvtt?label=experimental&label=master&aligned has incredibly bad results for rendering/ still :-/ |
| 12:51 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Any idea if they're failures to implement the features or the tests not being flexible enough to allow for a (permissible) range of rendering? |
| 12:56 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: I think many of the failures are in principle the latter, but really the spec doesn't allow much variation of rendering |
| 13:04 | <jgraham> | Bleh |
| 13:08 | <zcorpan_> | jgraham: looking at webvtt/rendering/cues-with-video/processing-model/basic.html in chrome, it looks like chrome makes the rendering area smaller than the video. The spec used to allow this, but can't find it in the spec now |
| 13:09 | <zcorpan_> | https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/commit/6f73c35e7c70c90592cbb6468e75afe4248dfca2 |
| 13:14 | <jgraham> | zcorpan_: Maybe that spec change is defacto wrong? |
| 13:16 | <zcorpan_> | jgraham: well maybe, but i don't think so. the spec previously allowed multiple different renderings, which was bad. but maybe instead of requiring 0% edge margin it should require the exact margin chromium uses, i dunno |
| 13:16 | <zcorpan_> | filing a crbug |
| 13:21 | <zcorpan_> | https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1012242 |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | JakeA: happy to elaborate on that short tweet btw, only so many characters to go around there |
| 14:29 | <JakeA> | annevk: only if you've got time! It's just a curiosity, but I've seen it trip up lots of things like media players |
| 14:33 | <annevk> | JakeA: with bfcache-style semantics it might not be too bad, but there's probably still a lot I'm missing as I'm not super comfortable with all aspects of bfcache |
| 14:33 | <annevk> | JakeA: and it's not clear how stable all bfcache bits are given that COOP makes it more involved |
| 14:34 | <JakeA> | same tbh. I should read up on COOP. Recording some HTTP 203 stuff tomorrow… maybe if I learn it enough on the train home… |
| 14:39 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: now I'm curious how COOP affects bfcache |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: currently it blows it away |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: the main problem is that COOP replaces the top-level browsing context |
| 14:42 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: ok. is this specced in https://gist.github.com/annevk/6f2dd8c79c77123f39797f6bdac43f3e ? |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | JakeA: I guess the other main difference between bfcache and a disconnected frame is that with bfcache the Window is still connected |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: no, session history in general is a mess |
| 14:44 | <JakeA> | I'm not sure what difference that makes in practice, but I guess I need to read COOP first |
| 14:45 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: ok. yeah. un-messing session history & navigation would be nice certainly :) |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | JakeA: that's not really related to COOP, but it means that if you have a Window object reference, .top and such still make sense |
| 15:44 | <JakeA> | annevk: zcorpan_ posted this on Twitter https://readable-email.org/list/whatwg/topic/the-so-called-magic-iframe-feature. "It turns out that there's a lot of code in browsers that can't cope with a disconnected iframe being alive." |
| 15:47 | <annevk> | JakeA: yeah, unclear how much of that is true with bfcache though |
| 15:47 | <JakeA> | true |
| 15:47 | <annevk> | JakeA: though maybe a lot of it is and it's the same issue as with COOP |
| 15:48 | <annevk> | I dunno, maybe not, it's hard |
| 16:24 | <ondras> | mkwst: a quick question: as an authorization provider, i would like my cookies to be sent cross-site. what is the recommended transition now? |
| 16:24 | <ondras> | send them with samesite=none for non-safari browsers? |