| 05:32 | <annevk> | Anyone awake that can rubberstamp https://github.com/whatwg/meta/pull/167? |
| 07:06 | <annevk> | On the one hand, I kinda hope nobody writes nested data URL dedicated workers, but on the other hand, I kinda want to test it does the right thing now... |
| 10:38 | <annevk> | Domenic: question about [[Class]], doesn't [[PlatformBrand]] or whatever we ended up calling it not also give that? Or is it different for prototype objects? |
| 10:39 | <annevk> | (more of a curiosity; I'm personally on train Chromium with respect to this issue) |
| 11:25 | <annevk> | thanks MikeSmith! |
| 12:28 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: cheers |
| 13:23 | <Domenic> | annevk: in ES5 Object.prototype.toString was defined to return "object [[Class]]", so changing [[Class]] would magically (i.e. non-user-hookably) affect Object.prototype.toString output. We have no such connection with [[PlatformBrand]]. |
| 13:24 | <annevk> | Domenic: oooh, they all use Object.prototype.toString(), I see |
| 13:54 | <bopandrade> | qq: are https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ going to be immutable? (specifically https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-node-contains) |
| 13:54 | <bopandrade> | im wondering if i need a revision link or something |
| 13:54 | <bopandrade> | are [...] links going to be [...] |
| 13:57 | <Domenic> | bopandrade: https://whatwg.org/working-mode#anchors |
| 14:01 | <bopandrade> | great, will use https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/commit-snapshots/543b7e33487be5e733b0a715eaf71d027e354a50/#interface-node in addition to the living standard one. thanks! |
| 14:02 | <bopandrade> | i mean, i linked the wrong anchor but you get the point |
| 14:08 | <MikeSmith> | has there been any discussion of moving the "part" attribute and "exportparts" attributes into the HTML spec? |
| 14:08 | <MikeSmith> | from https://drafts.csswg.org/css-shadow-parts/#part-attr and https://drafts.csswg.org/css-shadow-parts/#exportparts-attr |
| 14:10 | <MikeSmith> | https://wiki.developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_attributes/part#Browser_compatibility shows that "part" at least is already shipped both in Firefox and Chrome |
| 14:11 | <MikeSmith> | in general about new attributes defined in other specs, we don’t seem to be following any kind of consistent process of identifying them and deciding if/when to move them into HTML |
| 14:13 | <MikeSmith> | we instead seem to be defaulting to just expecting editors of other specs to take some action at some point |
| 14:15 | <Domenic> | We should do that... |
| 14:15 | <Domenic> | But I'm still bitter about adding reflection for the attributes being blocked |
| 14:15 | <Domenic> | (by Apple) |
| 14:15 | <Domenic> | It would feel very incomplete to add the attribute to HTML with no reflection support |
| 14:24 | <Domenic> | I guess this might be split across DOM and HTML similar to https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#classes |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | The objection was to string reflection, right? Perhaps we should let rniwa know about srcset; I wonder if that changes things |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | Alternatively, perhaps there is a thing we could use? Not entirely clear given the weirdish data model though |
| 14:42 | <Domenic> | We've let him know about srcset |
| 14:42 | <Domenic> | There is no thing we could use; the data model is new |
| 14:43 | <Domenic> | I argued repeatedly for adding string reflection and then, if Apple wants to spec and implement something new, they can. (Like class + classList.) But he said having any string reflection at all wasn't acceptable. So without a second implementer supporting string reflection we're stuck. |
| 14:55 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: turns out I made a mistake in that wasm PR, gonna PR soonish |
| 15:13 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/23172 |
| 15:16 | <Ms2ger> | ta |
| 20:16 | <annevk> | Domenic: did you see Maciej's comment about Workstreams? |
| 20:16 | <annevk> | Domenic: the easiest way to do compact is with <p>s, but ... |
| 20:35 | <Domenic> | annevk: doesn't seem that hard to just decrease a few margins? |
| 20:41 | <annevk> | Domenic: isn’t the main thing all the additional “newlines”? |
| 20:42 | <Domenic> | Oh, I didn't catch that. I guess I will stare at the two side by side more. |
| 20:42 | <Domenic> | dls are easy to style now though if you use div wrappers |
| 20:45 | <annevk> | If you want to take that on that’d be great, but I suppose I can take a look tomorrow. I was hoping this would be over |
| 21:02 | <Domenic> | Yeah, those seemed like really strange things to hold up the work over... |