| 01:32 | <Krinkle> | Do we allow browsers to suspend execution between microtasks? E.g. to keep the main thread responsive. I'm guessing the answer is 1) Yes, so long as it doesn't end up executing user-land JS during the suspension and 2) If the browser needs to do work to keep the UI responsive that doesn't require calling JS, it should already be just not doing that on the main thread anyway. |
| 01:32 | <Krinkle> | is that right? |
| 03:48 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: do you know if the WHATWG review-draft builds for Bikeshed spec use the “Slim Build” option? |
| 03:56 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: are the cases where the “Slim Build Artifact” option gets set internally, due to other options being set? |
| 03:56 | <MikeSmith> | I guess I just need to look at the source to see |
| 03:56 | <TabAtkins> | It's a metadata used just by the review drafts |
| 03:56 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 03:57 | <MikeSmith> | I don’t see where the review drafts builds explicitly set it |
| 03:57 | <TabAtkins> | Specifically to exclude a bunch of stuff to make them both slimmer and more about to use |
| 03:57 | <TabAtkins> | It's probably in the makefile |
| 03:57 | <MikeSmith> | looking at https://github.com/whatwg/whatwg.org/blob/master/resources.whatwg.org/build/deploy.sh |
| 03:58 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah I need to look at the makefile too |
| 04:00 | <MikeSmith> | I’m still not finding it; I guess there’s just something I’m missing |
| 04:00 | <TabAtkins> | Hmm, yeah, not sure either |
| 04:01 | <TabAtkins> | That's definitely what I added it for tho |
| 04:01 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, certainly makes sense |
| 04:01 | <MikeSmith> | OK, well, anyway, I think most likely that Bikeshed code I added for ensuring the data-mdn-for attributes get preserved, that came from testing with the DOM spec review-draft build |
| 04:02 | <MikeSmith> | ...because the W3C MoU explicitly requires the W3C review drafts to have annotations |
| 04:04 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: I see it set in bikeshed/boilerplate/whatwg/defaults-RD.include |
| 04:04 | <MikeSmith> | so I guess the WHATWG review drafts use "RD"? |
| 04:05 | <TabAtkins> | Ah yes, they do |
| 04:05 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK I guess that's the culprit then |
| 04:05 | <TabAtkins> | MoU? |
| 04:05 | <MikeSmith> | W3C-WHAWG Memo of Understanding |
| 04:06 | <MikeSmith> | https://www.w3.org/2019/04/WHATWG-W3C-MOU.html |
| 04:06 | <MikeSmith> | > As the W3C process requires implementation experience to advance beyond CR, while WHATWG process requires only implementation commitments, Review Drafts will include feature implementation status annotations in the margin. |
| 04:06 | <MikeSmith> | > The granularity of the annotations should be such that they can be reasonable indicators of which features have implementation experience. |
| 04:07 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, interesting |
| 04:07 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, that’s part of the reason I added the engine-count indicators in the annos |
| 04:08 | <MikeSmith> | it’s just good and useful in general to have those; it’s just a plus that also helps with that requirement from the MoU too |
| 04:10 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: anyway, given all that, if for ensuring the MDN annotations work in review-draft builds, there’s a better way than that special-casing code I added for ensuring the data-mdn-for attributes get preserved, then I’m fine with doing in any other way |
| 04:11 | <TabAtkins> | I'll think about it |
| 04:11 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 04:11 | <MikeSmith> | I realize now it was only for that review-draft case that I added it |
| 04:11 | <MikeSmith> | it wasn’t for any other issue that I observed in testing with other specs |
| 04:12 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: thanks super much for reviewing and making the fixes and merging. I’m really happy to see this landing. |
| 07:08 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: how would you feel about PR'ing the note in https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-request-redirect-mode with some of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42716082/fetch-api-whats-the-use-of-redirect-manual? |
| 07:08 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: oh wait, I guess I still can't ask you to write PRs ffs |
| 07:08 | <MikeSmith> | yeah :( |
| 07:09 | <annevk> | (sorry about the swearing) |
| 07:09 | <annevk> | Okay, I might do something since that keeps coming up and it's indeed super confusing |
| 07:09 | <MikeSmith> | I can empathize with the swearing |
| 07:12 | <MikeSmith> | if it were not for the draconian nature of the participant agreement, I estimate there are literally dozens of PRs I would have submitted over the last two years |
| 07:12 | <MikeSmith> | because in the previous two years before the participant agreement went into place, I know I submitted at least a hundred |
| 07:14 | <MikeSmith> | but as things are now, anger over the situation prevents me from even being willing to take the time to raise issues instead — because that’s just more work for me, to get around restrictions that I personally don’t think are even solving in real problems |
| 07:17 | <MikeSmith> | I have really come around to thinking that it’s even ethically wrong for me to help perpetuate a situation where the only people who are allowed to contribute PRs are privileged people |
| 07:17 | <MikeSmith> | because I honesty think that’s where we have ended up here — unintentionally of course |
| 07:18 | <MikeSmith> | I mean, it’s always hard for any of us to see our own privilege and to understand when we are benefiting from privilege |
| 07:19 | <MikeSmith> | and it’s hard to genuinely understand and empathize with the people who are not in a similar position of privilege |
| 07:22 | <MikeSmith> | but I believ that unless a potential contributor who’s employed in some organization is in a position of privilege to be able exert influence on the legal department of their employer, then we are locking them out from contributing |
| 07:23 | <MikeSmith> | essentially we are telling them they are unwelcome to contribute at the WHATWG because they are not sufficiently powerful enough to get move higher-up authority figures who control their professional lives |
| 07:36 | <annevk> | Yeah, it's really taking them much longer than I thought 😟 |
| 07:45 | <MikeSmith> | yeah it’s pretty demoralizing for me, really |
| 07:47 | <MikeSmith> | on the plus side, over the last two years, it’s freed on some of the time to be able to contribute elsewhere — working on MDN and the BCD stuff, and Stack Overflow |
| 07:50 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: speaking of MDN, now that the MDN-annotation support landed in Bikeshed, the "Include MDN Panels: true" option can be added to the .bs sources for all WHATWG specs |
| 07:54 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: that's a change we can make in bikeshed |
| 07:54 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: we only put stuff in the source of a spec if it's different per spec |
| 07:54 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: otherwise it goes in a template managed by bikeshed |
| 07:56 | <MikeSmith> | ah right |
| 07:56 | <MikeSmith> | OK, I can get the change made in Bikeshed |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I’m reviewing https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1010 |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: at least that's allowed |
| 10:29 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 10:30 | <MikeSmith> | that change is a nice clarification |
| 10:31 | <annevk> | I'll give it a day to see if the original reporter has something to add |
| 10:32 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 10:47 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: diff for https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5390 is so big that Github won’t let me review it online |
| 10:48 | <MikeSmith> | am checking out the branch locally to review |
| 10:48 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: that's great, it'd be nice to land that to avoid bit rot |
| 10:48 | <annevk> | I finally ran a couple search & replace operations to remove all the newlines that bothered me for years |
| 10:48 | <annevk> | Turns out there were literally thousands |
| 10:53 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, 4433 to be exact :) |
| 10:53 | <MikeSmith> | I was gonna comment that there are also two indent changes in there, for </li> and </dl> end tags, but I see you already commented about that |
| 10:54 | <annevk> | Yeah, I'm pretty sure those were wrong |
| 10:54 | <annevk> | (before I fixed them, that is) |
| 10:55 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 10:56 | <MikeSmith> | and fwiw, I just checked now to confirm that none of the removals are within pre elements |
| 10:58 | <MikeSmith> | but now the branch has a merge conflict, it looks like due to the “Make document's character encoding reflect byte order mark” change |
| 11:02 | <MikeSmith> | however I don’t see an actual conflict there — looking at the conflict-marked view of the source, I don’t see any actual conflict; I don’t see why git can’t just merge that particular bit from the “Make document's character encoding reflect byte order mark”, because there’s nothing it conflicts with in the source on the branch... |
| 11:05 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, looks like you can resolve it by just by accepting the HEAD change |
| 11:06 | <annevk> | I'll see about rebasing |
| 11:06 | <andreubotella> | Looks like annevk removed the blank line between <li> and <p>, where I inserted the BOM sniffing stuff |
| 11:07 | <annevk> | Nah, the problem is that the next bit still had the newline |
| 11:07 | <annevk> | So it got confused there |
| 11:08 | <annevk> | Anyway, it was easy enough to resolve |
| 11:51 | <annevk> | andreubotella: thanks again for all the patches btw! |
| 11:52 | <andreubotella> | annevk: no problem! |
| 14:11 | <Domenic> | annevk: I realized I may have been talking about origin isolation + SAB wrong. The current consensus is that SAB won't be transferrable at all unless you have COOP+COEP, right? In which case it will only be transferrable same-origin, not same-site, because crossOriginIsolated implies origin isolation, right? So that means origin isolation doesn't restrict SAB sharing, because SABs aren't ever sharable cross-site in the |
| 14:11 | <Domenic> | first place... right? |
| 14:12 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah, I pointed that out somewhere |
| 14:12 | <Domenic> | Dang OK. |
| 14:12 | <annevk> | Domenic: it does affect WebAssembly.Module I think, which is agent cluster restricted |
| 14:12 | <Domenic> | Oh fun |
| 14:15 | <Domenic> | annevk: you convinced yourself that it is fine to diverge WebAssembly.Module and SAB in that way? |
| 14:16 | <Domenic> | I guess it is fine for security, but aligning them might make things simpler. |
| 14:17 | <annevk> | Domenic: WebAssembly.Module doesn't enable timing attacks; I think the primary motivation is that folks don't want to recreate data structures in other processes |
| 14:17 | <annevk> | Domenic: and I suspect it'd be a hard sell to require COOP+COEP for it retroactively |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | Domenic: when COOP+COEP are enabled though, WebAssembly.Module and SAB are aligned |
| 14:18 | <Domenic> | Well we could just restrict it to same-origin agents |
| 14:18 | <Domenic> | Hmm no I see |
| 14:18 | <Domenic> | That doesn't make anything symmetric after all. |
| 14:18 | <Domenic> | OK, makes sense. |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | Yeah, I opened that issue for the same-origin restriction and ended up not liking it as it had holes |
| 14:19 | <annevk> | The only way to avoid holes is to change keying of agent clusters |
| 14:19 | <Domenic> | Filed https://github.com/WICG/origin-isolation/issues/22 to update origin isolation explainer. |
| 14:25 | <annevk> | 👍🏻 |
| 15:17 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1890952 adds tests for the cache keying, though I haven't looked in detail |
| 15:18 | <Domenic> | annevk: nice. Seems to only do popups though. |
| 15:19 | <Domenic> | I always forget we don't have the issue template for all repos |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | Ah yeah, that's another thing I've been meaning to get to |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | I want a repo-syncer thingie |
| 15:21 | <annevk> | Probably manual at first, but having all the files that each spec needs organized as templates would be a good improvement (and help with setting up new stuff) |
| 15:22 | <Domenic> | We could also create a template spec repository |
| 15:22 | <Domenic> | There's first-class support for template repositories |
| 15:22 | <annevk> | There is? |
| 15:22 | <annevk> | o_O |
| 15:23 | annevk | finds https://help.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/creating-a-template-repository |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | I guess that's not quite what I had in mind since I'd like the README and such to be templated files |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | But we should put it in a repo and then you run a Python command with your spec details and you get a new repo for that spec |
| 15:26 | <annevk> | (and that's also capable of updating an existing repo if we change the templates) |
| 15:32 | <Domenic> | Yeah it still would require some tweaks afterward, and a script sounds good. But it helps with stuff like .editorconfig/Makefile/LICENSE/etc. |
| 15:38 | <annevk> | My idea was that you run a script and give it a target directory and it fills that up with those files |
| 15:38 | <annevk> | Or it updates those files |
| 15:39 | <annevk> | Maybe similar to html-build it expects to be a parallel dir or some such |
| 16:03 | <Domenic> | That makes sense, just seems nicer to have the canonical source for those files be a template repository, instead of e.g. strings in a .py file. |
| 16:03 | <Domenic> | Maybe you use the GitHub feature to create a new repository from the template, clone the repository, and run `./finish-setup.py`, which modifies the templated files appropriately and then deletes itself. |
| 16:03 | <Domenic> | annevk: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/22406 has initial origin isolation tests; thoughts welcome (but not required) |
| 16:05 | <annevk> | Yeah that could work I suppose |
| 16:05 | <annevk> | I don't have time today |
| 16:05 | <Domenic> | No worries |
| 16:06 | <Domenic> | Review is slow over in Chromium land for the prereq patches as well, so I doubt they will land today |
| 17:59 | <annevk> | shu: can you get someone from Chrome/V8 to review https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/22385 please? It's the final PR for this hiding SAB thing |
| 18:01 | <shu> | annevk: okay let me try to find someone, not sure who usually reviews wpt |
| 18:05 | <annevk> | shu: ta |
| 18:38 | <shu> | annevk: nobody's biting, the changes themselves look small enough that i can review them without really understanding how WPT works |
| 18:38 | <shu> | wdyt |
| 18:40 | <annevk> | shu: sgtm |
| 19:19 | <JakeJimothy> | Hello :) |
| 19:19 | <JakeJimothy> | English is my not my first language, so I have trouble reading url spec. Have question?: |
| 19:20 | <JakeJimothy> | Any reason for un-percent-encoded question (?) in url excluding query? |
| 19:28 | <JakeJimothy> | wow faggot |
| 19:40 | <TabAtkins> | annevk or Domenic: I don't know what tools y'all have available. Any way to block the person just above? |