| 09:54 | <noamr> | annevk: hi, can I ask you to take a look at https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5574 again? It now includes all the EXIF details as we've discussed. |
| 10:33 | <annevk> | noamr: done |
| 10:50 | <noamr> | thanks annevk! Regarding the algorithm, it introduces some variables: preferred width/height, preferred horizonta/vertical resolution, preferred resolution unit. All of them only live within the "update the metadata" algorithm. is there a normative way to go about algorithm-local vars as such? |
| 10:51 | <annevk> | noamr: 1) use <var>, not <code> and 2) don't tie them to img |
| 10:52 | <annevk> | noamr: so not img's preferred width, but let _preferredWidth_ be ... |
| 10:52 | <noamr> | got it, thanks again annevk. Will ping you again when it's amended |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | noamr: reading https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/ might help |
| 10:53 | <noamr> | got it |
| 13:44 | <noamr> | annevk: I think those issues are fixed now... ready for another look |
| 13:44 | <noamr> | (finally got my builds running quickly after switching to local docker, could never get the wattsi server to return stable responses) |
| 15:04 | <benjamingr__> | Hey, I see that Chrome returns for `Object.keys(new Event('foo'))` `['isTrusted']`, looking at the spec it looks like isTrusted is "[LegacyUnforgeable]" but I am not sure if Chrome is correct to set it as enumerable https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#LegacyUnforgeable (Firefox behaves like Chrome, Edge does not enumerate it) |
| 15:04 | <benjamingr__> | My intuition is to behave like Chrome and Firefox here |
| 15:11 | <annevk> | benjamingr__: https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#define-the-unforgeable-regular-attributes |
| 15:13 | <benjamingr__> | Thanks! |
| 17:27 | <benjamingr__> | Hmm, I am starting to port WPTs to run in Node and I noticed a lot of the DOM event tests are very browser-specific (which makes sense). For example tests for `once` will dispatch the events on `document` rather than dispatch them on a `new EventTarget()`. I want to port those tests to run in Node but I don't have a `document` (since I'm not implementing the whole spec). I have a copy where I just do `const document |
| 17:27 | <benjamingr__> | = new EventTarget()` and I _think_ we can probably run the tests that way - but I was wondering if it would be helpful if I ported the source tests to use that format. For example this file: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/dom/events/AddEventListenerOptions-once.html can be a `.js` file with `new EventTarget()` rather than `document` being used. Would that be at all helpful? |
| 17:48 | <zcorpan> | benjamingr__: it seems helpful for projects using wpt that aren't browsers (like Node.js, Deno) |
| 17:49 | <zcorpan> | benjamingr__: there's precedent for changing tests in that way for that purpose https://bocoup.com/blog/wpt-workshop-report |
| 17:50 | <zcorpan> | benjamingr__: it's *possible* that browsers have bugs in `document` or other objects that aren't shared with `EventTarget`, though, so ideal would be to keep that coverage somehow |
| 18:17 | <benjamingr__> | I can make a PR adding copies of those tests with EventTarget though that would be some duplicate coverage. Just asking what's helpful. |
| 21:11 | <gsnedders> | benjamingr__: I'd disagree with zcorpan here, not sure it really makes sense to duplicate them for everything |