| 00:35 | <MikeSmith> | I see https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=571722#c21 “User-Agent isn't currently allowed to be set. Mark the TestExceptations against it.” but I nothing in the current Fetch spec that disallows setting User-Agent in fetch requests |
| 00:35 | <MikeSmith> | not at https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#forbidden-header-name nor anywhere in the spec |
| 01:10 | <a-ja> | MikeSmith, related? https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-to-phase-out-user-agent-strings-in-chrome/ |
| 01:11 | <a-ja> | how about Sec-UA-* ? |
| 01:12 | <a-ja> | erm.... Sec-CH-UA-* |
| 01:13 | <a-ja> | https://wicg.github.io/ua-client-hints/#fetch-integration |
| 03:05 | <annevk> | shu: kinda here now |
| 06:12 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: I see I can push to Bikeshed master; if I did that, would api.csswg.org update automatically? |
| 06:19 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: yes |
| 06:23 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: cool, rest assured, I'll make sure CI is passing |
| 06:23 | <annevk> | And I need to wait for Domenic to wake up to align on some other bits |
| 06:24 | <annevk> | Cross-repo-dependency count is at 16 |
| 16:52 | <shu> | what does it mean for the _active script_ in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#hostenqueuepromisejob to be null? |
| 16:53 | <shu> | is it for the case for a web platform feature enqueuing a promise job without running author script? |
| 16:55 | <annevk> | shu: sounds likely |
| 16:55 | <Domenic> | shu: "active script can be null if the user clicks on the following button:" |
| 16:55 | <shu> | ooh, doh, there's an example, thanks |
| 16:56 | <shu> | Domenic: am i reading that correctly then it's those other hooks that set up the execution context? i'm not really finding where that's done |
| 16:57 | <Domenic> | shu: if I understand what you mean, you are looking for https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#prepare-to-run-script ? |
| 16:58 | <shu> | Domenic: not quite, my confusion is: step 5 creates a new execution context to be pushed inside the microtask itself, to propagate active script forward in time. but if there is no active script, there must still be a JS execution context to run the microtask. where does that execution context come from? is it guaranteed to exist already on the stack due to the other import host hooks? |
| 16:59 | <shu> | prepare-to-run-script says it's propagated via the other settings objects |
| 16:59 | <Domenic> | shu: Ah. The execution context will then be the one pushed via step 6.2. |
| 16:59 | <shu> | just trying to put the pieces together with the settings objects stacks |
| 17:00 | <shu> | ah, beautiful, ty |
| 17:00 | <Domenic> | That doesn't seem particularly intentional FWIW... |
| 17:01 | <Domenic> | But I guess it works |
| 17:01 | <annevk> | Domenic: probably won't have time to finish the .pr-preview.json cleanups today |
| 17:01 | <annevk> | Domenic: if you could set up the remaining bits I can do it tomorrow though |
| 17:02 | <Domenic> | annevk: for sure, will do; meant to do it before you signed off but this morning got hit by some surprise issues |
| 17:03 | <annevk> | Domenic: all good |
| 21:58 | <Domenic> | Someone should fix https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/URI |
| 22:07 | <Domenic> | https://www.ryanpickren.com/webcam-hacking is quite something |
| 22:07 | <Domenic> | Lots of origin/URL-related madness |
| 22:08 | <Domenic> | It's mostly finding terrible corners of specs, and then finding corners of those corners that weren't implemented correctly, in order to create exploits. |