| 14:53 | <innovati> | What's the story about HTML's support for <![CDATA[cdata sections]]> and <?processsing-instruction?>? |
| 14:53 | <innovati> | In Chrome they parse as <!--[CDATA[cdata sections]]--> and <!--?processsing-instruction?--> |
| 14:54 | <innovati> | Is their parsing in HTML to allow parsing them inside embedded XML documents only? |
| 15:04 | <Domenic> | innovati: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/syntax.html#cdata-sections might help. |
| 15:04 | <Domenic> | Outside of foreign content they are "bogus comments", I believe. I.e. they are similar to <!anything else> |
| 15:06 | <innovati> | interesting it seems <!a> and <?a> parse as <!--a--> and <!--?a--> |
| 15:07 | <innovati> | does the spec talk about bogus comments, or is this just something browsers do? |
| 15:07 | <innovati> | (I'm writing XML, and HTML templating functions, and functions that process DOM nodes so I have to write tests and I'm realizing gaps in my own understanding :D ) |
| 15:14 | <andreubotella> | The parsing algorithm describes in full detail all aspects of parsing, including such "bogus comments". |
| 15:16 | <andreubotella> | though in many particular occasions, an HTML parser is allowed to give up and reject the input when it's invalid |
| 15:17 | <andreubotella> | not sure if in the case of bogus comments |
| 15:18 | <andreubotella> | although browsers are not exempted from giving up like that, no major browser does |
| 15:30 | <innovati> | ah found this https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#parse-error-unexpected-question-mark-instead-of-tag-name |
| 15:30 | <innovati> | and in this section it seems to cover the <!-- and <! style comments, I think that's what you were just talking about? https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#comment-start-state |
| 15:31 | <innovati> | Thanks Domenic && andreubotella <3 |
| 15:31 | <andreubotella> | that's right |
| 15:31 | <andreubotella> | np |
| 15:32 | <andreubotella> | the CDATA and <!a> cases are covered in the markup declaration state |
| 15:32 | <andreubotella> | *markup declaration open |
| 15:34 | <innovati> | it's pretty beautiful in practice how resilient HTML is |
| 15:36 | <Domenic> | annevk: edgarchen: Web IDL reviews this week? :) |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | Domenic: it's very annoying that you cannot accept commit suggestions on whatwg/html; I guess the file is too big or some such? |
| 16:17 | <Domenic> | Ah, yeah, that makes sense |
| 17:00 | <annevk> | Domenic: I did one and pinged Edgar for the other |
| 17:20 | <Domenic> | annevk: so should we merge all the extended attribute renames, you think? |
| 17:25 | <Domenic> | annevk: I'm gonna do it |
| 17:29 | <annevk> | Domenic: the one remaining concern I had was tooling/impl interest; I can say Fx will get to it eventually |
| 17:30 | <Domenic> | Hmm fair |
| 17:30 | <Domenic> | I checked the tooling and they're pretty much OK |
| 17:37 | <Domenic> | Ugh the Bikeshed service is broken? https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/issues/1649 |
| 18:28 | <bkardell> | Domenic: can you help me figure out how I can move https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5248 properly? To recap: We suggested changing the interface name first because all of the things follow, but that didn't fly because it wasn't observeable directly by itself until mathml does something in implementations - it does in 2 browsers now mostly agree to what those things are... you suggested the special link/tabindex bit, |
| 18:28 | <bkardell> | we took some time and I thought sorted that out, wrote the tests and stuff but then webkit doesn't want to do that in this pull. It seems to me that another pull would depend on a lesser pull first else there isn't even a tabIndex... Unsure how to move this forward |
| 18:29 | <Domenic> | bkardell: I don't see why a tabindex PR would depend on that PR |
| 18:29 | <bkardell> | ok then :) |
| 18:30 | <bkardell> | I mean, I assumed because nothing specified it should even have a tabindex until you route through all the things, but ok.. .I'm good with that, will send a separate one |
| 18:32 | <Domenic> | We might delay merging until they can be merged at the same time, but it seems worthwhile having a separate PR for that separate change. |
| 19:10 | <annevk> | This situation is a bit confusing also with ARIA adding to this potentially |
| 19:10 | <annevk> | No good suggestions though; I support the high bar |
| 19:11 | <annevk> | Or consistent bar, if you will |
| 20:31 | <Domenic> | annevk or others: do you know if Gecko is working on out of process iframes? |
| 20:34 | <jgraham> | Yes |
| 20:34 | <jgraham> | https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project_Fission |
| 20:35 | <jgraham> | Unless you mean out of process same origin, in which case I don't know |
| 20:44 | <Domenic> | Nah, cross-origin |
| 20:45 | <Domenic> | Thanks; I thought Fission was just for tabs, not iframes |