| 06:00 | <mridul_> | Hi |
| 12:58 | <jrmykolyn> | Hello all. New to IRC and I'm hoping that someone can help answer a question about the WHATWG participation agreement? |
| 12:58 | <jrmykolyn> | I see that the options for signing the agreement are either as an individual that is not currently working in development/programming/software or as a representation of an entity that does. In cases where someone works for multiple entities at the same time, are they free to just pick one? |
| 13:14 | <andreubotella> | Client: HexChat 2.14.3 • OS: GNOME master (Flatpak runtime) • CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core Processor (4.19GHz) • Memory: Physical: 15.3 GiB Total (10.3 GiB Free) Swap: 7.7 GiB Total (7.7 GiB Free) • Storage: 334.8 GB / 477.6 GB (142.8 GB Free) • VGA: 10de:1f82 @ Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] ISYTEC - Integrierte Systemtechnik GmBH • Uptime: 33m 28s |
| 13:14 | <andreubotella> | my bad, my irc client was misbehaving |
| 13:16 | <andreubotella> | jrmykolyn: the way I understand it, the agreement is a way to keep track of potential patent owners which might've changed the standard to incorporate their patents, forcing every browser vendor to pay them |
| 13:17 | <andreubotella> | so that should be all of the entities you work for |
| 13:18 | <andreubotella> | but the definition of "field of web technologies" was recently narrowed, and it basically only covers browsers and other web clients and servers, not website development |
| 13:18 | <andreubotella> | https://github.com/whatwg/sg/pull/129 |
| 13:35 | <jrmykolyn> | andreubotella: Thanks for following up. I'll have a look at the 'field of web technologies' document that you shared. |
| 13:36 | <jrmykolyn> | This is hypothetical now, but let's say person A works for vendor 1 and vendor 2. Person A must sign the participant agreement on behalf of both vendors in order to contribute? |
| 14:02 | <Domenic> | jrmykolyn: that seems correct, indeed. If they only signed for vendor 1, then they could act on behalf of vendor 2 to get a patented-by-vendor-2 technology into the standard, and thus cause serious problems for the ecosystem. |
| 14:13 | <jrmykolyn> | Domenic: Great, thanks for jumping in. It sounds like I need to review the document that andreubotella shared. |
| 15:34 | <jrmykolyn> | Domenic and andreubotella: Alright, I think the update introduced in that pull request clarifies quite a bit. |
| 15:38 | <jrmykolyn> | My current understanding is that someone who works as a professional developer/programmer/software engineer may sign the participant agreement _as an individual_ so long as their employer(s) are not 'web technology vendors'. |
| 19:01 | <The-Compiler> | Hey! Are there some test cases somewhere for parsing javascript: URLs, i.e. https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/URL_schemes#javascript:_URLs ? |
| 19:01 | <The-Compiler> | it's easy to invent my own but I feel like I can't be the first person to do this |
| 19:12 | <Domenic> | The-Compiler: not sure exactly what you mean by parsing, but there are some tests for javascript: URLs in general in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/html/browsers/browsing-the-web/navigating-across-documents |
| 19:12 | <Domenic> | However this area is pretty under-specified and tested; see all the open issues in https://github.com/whatwg/html/labels/topic%3A%20javascript%3A%20URLs |
| 19:13 | <Domenic> | Parsing JS URLs should be the same as parsing all other URLs (https://url.spec.whatwg.org/; see tests link in the header) but the tricky part is executing them |
| 19:13 | <Domenic> | For that see https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#javascript-protocol ; I am guessing you are most interested in steps 2.1-2.3 |
| 19:14 | <The-Compiler> | Domenic: parsing as in "getting the javascript source", it was a bit unexpected that e.g. query and fragment are also added so that ? and # works unescaped |
| 19:14 | <Domenic> | Right, per the above algorithm it's just "everything after the leading 'javascript:', percent-decoded" |
| 19:15 | <Domenic> | See also https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/385 |
| 19:21 | <The-Compiler> | Domenic: okay, that seems like a better source than some probably outdated wiki page, thanks :) |
| 19:21 | <Domenic> | Hmm, right, yeah, I'll get that page updated |