| 08:03 | <ondras> | hmh, is "-webkit-any-link" handled specially with respect to specificity? the UA's "a:-webkit-any-link" does not seem to be more specific/strong than my plain "a"... |
| 08:49 | <ondras> | or perhaps the UA origin is always weaker than Author origin, right |
| 11:13 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: not WPT tests for AbstractRange? |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: tests in what sense? |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: there must be IDL tests by now |
| 11:14 | <MikeSmith> | yeah there are IDL tests |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: so btw, if this is about the upcoming DOM RD / W3C ?, note that I haven't seen any activity on infrastructure support for the W3C ? bit |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: and I think I did mention to people that needed to be done |
| 11:16 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: yes, it is about that and what activity on infrastructure support do you mean? |
| 11:17 | <MikeSmith> | FYI https://w3c.github.io/mdn-spec-links/less-than-2.html?spec=dom&url=https://dom.spec.whatwg.org is something I set up to identify features that don’t have two implementations |
| 11:17 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: getting the second logo and some additional text in the draft, flipping some colors |
| 11:17 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 11:17 | <MikeSmith> | well we are a ways off from needing to do that yet |
| 11:18 | <MikeSmith> | but regardless I guess I am the person who will need to do the activity on that |
| 11:18 | <MikeSmith> | so lack of anything being done about it so far is just because of me not doing it |
| 11:18 | <annevk> | well, about six weeks and it involves changes to bikeshed and whatwg repos I think, so some coordination required |
| 11:19 | <annevk> | okay, I guess all I'm saying is that it would be good to have that sorted some time in advance so that when it comes to publishing that isn't a hurdle |
| 11:22 | <MikeSmith> | OK. I guess I should know what the publication schedule is, but anyway I have not been given a deadline yet |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I plan to publish the RDs, which include DOM, December 16, it's in your calendar as well I think |
| 11:23 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 11:23 | <MikeSmith> | I know that |
| 11:23 | <MikeSmith> | from the WHATWG side |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: since it's one document it'll have to be the same date |
| 11:24 | <MikeSmith> | OK I see now |
| 11:24 | <MikeSmith> | well, I have been neglecting it |
| 11:25 | <MikeSmith> | it’s not due to lack of others asking me to get some stuff done |
| 11:25 | <MikeSmith> | so I guess I need to get it all lined up soon-ish |
| 11:49 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: so https://wpt.fyi/results/dom/idlharness.window.html%3Fexclude%3DNode?label=experimental&label=master&aligned seems to be saying that AbstractRange is only supported in Firefox? |
| 11:52 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: could be, I think I filed bugs on other browsers; they implemented StaticRange before we created AbstractRange |
| 11:52 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 11:52 | MikeSmith | will look for the browser bugs |
| 13:57 | <Domenic> | annevk: MikeSmith: I think the plan was to update the RD after the fact with W3C logo/change in warning color/warning text/etc. Although not updating the date. This seems necessary because we need to first change it to CR and then to REC, so some in-place updating is necessary anyway. |
| 13:58 | <Domenic> | That said given that we don't have a mechanism to use "Bikeshed and linking database as of a specific date", there's a possibility the spec will start failing to build during the lag time, which will need some finesseing. I guess maybe we could just turn off warnings-as-errors if necessary. |
| 14:01 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: yeah about the logo and addition of Status/boilerplate stuff, I had just been assuming it could wait til the actual W3C publication |
| 14:02 | <MikeSmith> | as far I understand, to do the W3C publication will require the usual process of steps of the W3C WG requesting transition, getting approval |
| 14:02 | <MikeSmith> | it also requires some statement of exit criteria |
| 14:03 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway I’ve been neglecting it all |
| 14:03 | <MikeSmith> | so I need to get on the ball |
| 14:04 | <MikeSmith> | there’s nothing I love more than process, so I always procrastinate so I and really savor every moment of it |
| 14:04 | <Domenic> | :) |
| 16:10 | <annevk> | Domenic: I thought those transitions would always take six months |
| 16:10 | <Domenic> | I don't remember anything about that... Not sure how it would work. |
| 16:11 | <annevk> | Not super enthusiastic about mutating what are supposed to be immutable documents. Are you sure the sg shares that understanding? |
| 16:12 | <Domenic> | I'm not sure. I just don't see how the W3C would approve something for CR and then approve something with 6 months worth of changes as REC. |
| 16:14 | <annevk> | Hmm, I thought that’s why we had annotations, but yeah |
| 18:19 | <Domenic> | annevk: dumb question, but I thought multiple headers got concatenated with commas, at least in the model? Or is that only request headers? https://github.com/WICG/origin-policy/issues/36 |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah, that comment is somewhat dated, ideally they get combined with a comma first and then parsed |
| 18:23 | <Domenic> | OK good |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-header-list-get-decode-split has a primitive |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | Domenic: if you don't allow multiple values you can use a simpler primitive of course and fail on a comma being present |
| 18:24 | <Domenic> | Hmm right |
| 18:25 | <Domenic> | Well structured headers use commas |
| 18:25 | <Domenic> | I guess they use it within the multiple values framework |
| 18:32 | <annevk> | Oh yeah, for structured headers we should probably define a high-level "get as structured value" that gives you typed things back |
| 18:33 | <annevk> | Mike added set a structured header the other day as a start |
| 18:36 | <Domenic> | I feel like if you squint and say dictionaries = ordered maps, lists = lists, the structured headers spec is already pretty good |
| 18:37 | <Domenic> | It was so cool to see actual defined error handling, omg. https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure.html#rfc.section.4.2.2 tells me what to do on duplicate dictionary keys. |
| 18:38 | <annevk> | mnot slowly moving the IETF to the early 2000s |
| 19:51 | <annevk> | Domenic: did you see https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1058? |
| 19:51 | <annevk> | Domenic: also, do you know why they are all strings and not nicer types? |
| 19:51 | <Domenic> | annevk: yeah, they are basically enums with misleading names. E.g. there are a lot of things that are "true" / "false" / "some third value" |
| 19:54 | <Domenic> | annevk: did not see that issue; will respond |
| 19:55 | <annevk> | Domenic: there's a bunch of things that are effectively numbers |
| 19:56 | <annevk> | Domenic: and the enums aren't restricted to known values it seems |
| 19:56 | <annevk> | Domenic: which is generally how we prefer to reflect those |
| 19:56 | <Domenic> | Hrm |
| 19:56 | <annevk> | Domenic: and yeah, ARIA not using the proper boolean attribute syntax is annoying, I think I raised a formal objection over that, which got ignored |
| 19:58 | <annevk> | Oh no, it was a higher-level concern, https://annevankesteren.nl/2011/01/wai-aria-objection |
| 19:59 | <Domenic> | annevk: open a new issue for the integers? I think we just missed that :-/ |
| 20:01 | <Domenic> | In particular I think all the debates were around true/false vs. "true"/"false" and so when we felt that was settled we thought we were done. |
| 20:02 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1110 |
| 20:03 | <annevk> | Domenic: and when they only accept true and false a boolean seems better? Though you need a new type of reflect |
| 20:03 | <annevk> | Domenic: ARIA boolean reflect or whatever |
| 20:04 | <annevk> | nn |
| 20:04 | <Domenic> | annevk: I don't think that's a good idea, in particular it breaks the current model that setting `el.x = false` will delete the `x=""` attribute. Also it prevents future extension of the value space which the ARIA WG has disliked. |