| 04:07 | <Domenic> | tomasino: I wouldn't bring those words to other software projects. The URL Standard is meant to be applicable to all software. It's just a thesis that not all software needs to automatically be able to figure out that gopher://foo is the same as gopher://foo:70. |
| 04:09 | <Domenic> | Ideally there would be no automatic port mappings, and ports would always be specified explicitly, but that's not compatible with deployed software. We found that removing the gopher/70 mapping *was* compatible with a large deploy-base of software, so we did. But we probably won't be able to remove the remaining ones, it's true. |
| 04:09 | <Domenic> | Maybe we'll be able to get rid of ftp, hmm. |
| 14:42 | <SimonSapin> | Domenic: What does it bring to actively remove little-used default port mappings? |
| 14:42 | <SimonSapin> | Now that they’re already here |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | SimonSapin: Chrome and Safari basically did that, Domenic and I were opposed |
| 14:59 | <tomasino> | Chrome and Safari don't support gopher, and are dropping FTP support so it makes sense for those projects to not care about the default port mappings. I see that as fundementally different from a standard, though, which impacts broader software |
| 15:00 | <tomasino> | Domenic's comment that ideally no ports would be mapped as special cases makes sense, as does the desire to not break large applications |
| 15:00 | <tomasino> | i see how you ended up where you are |
| 15:01 | <tomasino> | I'd have avoided the change to remove gopher or FTP though. It was already in there and fine and the change is causing more work for people through regressions than just keeping the support in place |
| 15:01 | <Domenic> | Yes, that was our desire, but the implementations overruled. |
| 15:03 | <tomasino> | fair enough! :) |
| 15:59 | <nox> | annevk: I'm waiting for a build to finish and randomly wondered: what's the state of those DOM mutation changes I initiated last year? Did you clean and land everything? |
| 16:01 | <annevk> | nox: I was cleaning up the tests and didn't finish that |
| 16:02 | <nox> | Ok! |
| 18:38 | <Domenic> | TimothyGu: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/840#issuecomment-588529530 is terrible, why are proxies like this. |
| 18:41 | <TimothyGu> | I found out about this when implementing legacy platform objects webidl2js. See all the additional hooks annotated with “(necessary because of proxy semantics)” |
| 18:42 | <TimothyGu> | That’s why I tried to warn you about possible additional work in trying to use Proxy in spec land :’) |
| 18:43 | <Domenic> | I wonder if we could have easy versions for the derived traps which delegate to the proxy (instead of to the target) |
| 20:36 | <Domenic> | Ooh Servo on wpt.fyi: https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&product=chrome%5Bexperimental%5D&product=firefox%5Bexperimental%5D&product=safari%5Bexperimental%5D&product=servo&aligned |
| 23:27 | <gsnedders> | Domenic: it's been hiding there for a bit ;P |