| 05:42 | <annevk> | andreubotella: there’s a fakepath serialization that uses backslashes; is it about not confusing that perhaps? Too long ago to recall full history here |
| 05:43 | <annevk> | andreubotella: there’s an issue against the File API about what a name of a File can be and this does sound relevant for that; I guess I should take a look later |
| 06:57 | <andreubotella> | annevk: I wasn't talking about the fakepath serialization, but I guess there's some historical context with old scripts that assumed windows paths |
| 06:57 | <andreubotella> | annevk: it's not confusing, I just wanted to cover all the bases |
| 07:18 | <annevk> | andreubotella: I was correct: 'Since path components are not permitted in file names in the list of selected files, the "\fakepath\" cannot be mistaken for a path component.' |
| 07:19 | <annevk> | andreubotella: but I wonder if this is properly enforced now that we allow setting .files; I guess I need to check it now |
| 07:39 | <andreubotella> | annevk: if you haven't checked yet, the File constructor replaces '/' with ':' but somehow not '\\' |
| 07:39 | <andreubotella> | hmm |
| 07:39 | <andreubotella> | gonna file that issue |
| 07:40 | <annevk> | andreubotella: there's an issue for replacing / with : |
| 07:40 | <annevk> | andreubotella: but yeah, thanks |
| 07:41 | <annevk> | andreubotella: I guess this needs some changes |
| 07:41 | <andreubotella> | annevk: #41, right? |
| 07:42 | <annevk> | andreubotella: hai |
| 09:54 | <annevk> | domfarolino: diff view should be good again, but requires pushing a fresh commit of sorts |
| 14:52 | <annevk> | Domenic: I should probably file an issue on this somewhere, but the one weird thing with some of our specs not using pure Bikeshed is that PR Preview looks at the wrong thing; and I think this goes for HTML to some extent as well by it invoking wattsi rather than the build scripts |
| 14:53 | <annevk> | I haven't really seen it manifest in concrete issues which is why I haven't bothered with it much so far |
| 14:53 | <Domenic> | annevk: we have an issue for HTML. What do you mean about not using pure Bikeshed? |
| 14:54 | <annevk> | Domenic: e.g. Streams has some ec-markup, right? Encoding generates some other files on the side. I think one or more specs have some images that wouldn't end up being diffed |
| 14:54 | <Domenic> | Streams is getting fixed |
| 14:54 | <annevk> | (and also wouldn't be hosted on whatpr) |
| 14:55 | <Domenic> | Images and other files, yeah, I see |
| 15:07 | <Domenic> | annevk: any better ideas than "The URL(s) of the resource(s) linked is (are) given by the href or imagesrcset attributes?" :-/ |
| 15:10 | <annevk> | "The URLs of linked resources are given by the href and imagesrcset attributes." maybe? That they're mutually exclusive comes next |
| 15:12 | <Domenic> | They're not mutually exclusive though... |
| 15:12 | <Domenic> | COmmenting. |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah, sorry, I meant that we should require that either, in a non-exclusive way, is present |
| 16:00 | <Domenic> | https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/ is now done in Web IDL \o/ |
| 16:01 | <rmn_> | Hi all, I am confused reading a particular statement that is part of the WHATWG's HTML 5 standard specification, the one that goes "parent has an element child, child is a doctype, or child is non-null and a doctype is following child.", point 6 at https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-node-ensure-pre-insertion-validity |
| 16:01 | <rmn_> | As part of implementing the "ensure pre-insertion validity" procedure, I am unsure whether the statement quoted above should be understood as "(parent has an element child _and_ child is a doctype) or (child is non-null and a doctype is following child". Can anyone please assist me here? |
| 16:04 | <Domenic> | rmn_: I think you'll get the best answer if you file the issue on the specification issue tracker, i.e. https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues |
| 16:04 | <Domenic> | Probably that text should be rewritten to be easier to tell the intended meaning |
| 16:05 | <rmn_> | Thank you, I will create an issue about this. |
| 16:41 | <aselman4> | Hello Everyone, i am encountering a scenario that im having a hard time find a solution for. the scenario is as follows. 1) browser makes simple request to backend server to login 2) backend server responds with redirect to ADFS server 3) ADFS server responds with redirect to backend server 4) backend server return user token |
| 16:44 | <aselman4> | i dont have any control over the ADFS server so i cant make it send CORS related headers but i do have control over the backend server. i was thinking that if i could manually follow the redirects then at the last step i can make a CORS request and the response body/headers would be available. |
| 16:45 | <aselman4> | i read though issues #601 and #763 but there doesnt seem to be way. Anyone here have any ideas? |
| 17:15 | <annevk> | Domenic: "The current PR, where "cleans up after running script" happens after potentially reporting errors, supports Gecko's behavior (microtask checkpoint after both error events)." I'm not sure I follow |
| 17:15 | <annevk> | Domenic: the error events are dispatched promise a microtask, right? |
| 17:15 | <annevk> | s/promise/from/ |
| 17:16 | <Domenic> | annevk: hmm, right... |
| 17:16 | <Domenic> | Argh |
| 17:16 | <annevk> | I did try to point it out |
| 17:16 | <annevk> | But yeah, I myself got confused a few times as well |
| 17:16 | <Domenic> | You did, I just didn't understand |
| 17:17 | <Domenic> | OK, I'll edit |
| 18:21 | <Domenic> | annevk: are we ready to do the secure context refactoring now? |
| 18:27 | <TimothyGu> | annevk: thanks for adding me to Web IDL :) |
| 18:28 | <TimothyGu> | though hmm, I don't think I have access yet… |
| 18:30 | <TimothyGu> | ah I need to click the big green button |
| 18:47 | <Domenic> | Well deserved :) |
| 19:45 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah |
| 19:45 | <annevk> | TimothyGu: all you 👍🏻 |
| 19:45 | <Domenic> | annevk: great, I'll try to chip in after I figure out window.originIsolated |
| 19:46 | <TimothyGu> | annevk: how does editorship work for Web IDL? Should I just send a PR adding my name |
| 20:28 | <annevk> | TimothyGu: yeah |