06:16
<annevk>
MikeSmith: yes, "don't monkey patch"
06:16
<annevk>
MikeSmith: I think there might be an issue open for this against HTML
06:16
<MikeSmith>
ok
06:16
<annevk>
MikeSmith: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5204
06:19
<annevk>
MikeSmith: and filed https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/184
06:20
MikeSmith
loosk
06:20
<MikeSmith>
ah cool
06:20
<MikeSmith>
thanks
06:22
<MikeSmith>
in other news, the UI Events spec doesn’t seem to actually define any event handlers named “onfocusin” and “onfocusout” (despite defining “focusin” and “focusout” events)
06:24
<MikeSmith>
and blink and gecko don’t seem to have “onfocusin” and “onfocusout” event handlers, though webkit does
06:25
<annevk>
MikeSmith: that has an issue too
06:25
<MikeSmith>
aha
06:25
<annevk>
MikeSmith: (UI Events is a mess in general)
06:25
<MikeSmith>
yeah
06:25
<MikeSmith>
and I vaguely recall having asked about this before
06:25
<annevk>
MikeSmith: the whole lot of focus events ought to be moved to HTML
06:25
<MikeSmith>
right
06:25
<MikeSmith>
that would be nice
06:25
<MikeSmith>
I vote for that
06:26
<annevk>
If we have focusin/focusout we should also have the event handlers
06:26
<MikeSmith>
yeah
06:27
<MikeSmith>
anyway, found https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4542 Should `onfocusin`/`onfocusout` IDL attributes be added?
06:27
<MikeSmith>
and https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3514 Define all focus events
08:50
<annevk>
MikeSmith: https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-feature-policy/issues/359#issuecomment-627845363 wants another tech writer opinion 🙂
10:12
<annevk>
ta
15:04
<Domenic>
Wow I was unsure on permission vs. permissions but that "right policy" argument has me solidly convinced.
16:08
<annevk>
Domenic: quick check, is the default revert commit message fine for the title or did we have a different style, e.g., "Revert: ..."?
16:09
<annevk>
I should probably include the information from OP in the body for clarity
16:09
<Domenic>
Default is what I remember
16:09
<annevk>
k
16:09
<annevk>
And yeah, I regret not testing that one, that was dumb
16:27
<annevk>
Domenic: I should have looked at mgiuca's branch earlier, that has an approach that probably works
16:27
<Domenic>
Nice
16:34
<Domenic>
annevk: can you use spec-factory to give Infra the latest makefile?
16:35
<annevk>
Hmm, it should have created a PR
16:35
<annevk>
Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/infra/pull/301
16:36
<annevk>
I guess I could run it again though I'm worried that some repos that haven't merged it will get a duplicate
16:36
<Domenic>
It got outdated hmm
16:37
<annevk>
yeah that's weird
16:38
<Domenic>
The GitHub button seemed to work
16:41
<annevk>
ooh
16:41
<annevk>
i think this is my fault
16:41
<annevk>
let me fix something
16:42
<annevk>
I had enabled "Require branches to be up to date before merging " in a few places without realizing what a pain it was
16:42
<Domenic>
Ah yeah
16:42
<annevk>
forgot to disable it here
21:29
<saber1>
Domenic: I have a testcase https://mozilla.seanfeng.dev/files/testcase-fullscreen-dialog.html, clicks the div makes the div fullscreen, and it'll show a modal dialog afterwords. At this point, press `escape` will exit the fullscreen first in Chrome. Would you consider this a Chrome bug? I think it violate the `Canceling dialogs` section
21:31
<Domenic>
saber1: I don't think it violates the spec, as the Canceling dialogs section is intentionally vague and UI affordances like "what does Esc do" are really up to each browser. But I think I would personally prefer to escape out of all dialogs first before escaping out of fullscreen; I'd be curious what our UX/security folks think.
21:32
<Domenic>
I guess it would be bad if you could pop up a ton of modal dialogs and thus prevent the user from exiting fullscreen until they pressed Esc a thousand times?
21:39
<saber1>
Domenic: I see...What I was thinking was, if the `escape` key is the user interface to cancel the dialog, since the document is blocked by the modal dialog, pressing this key should cancel the dialog. But yeah I see your point, I think this is fine