| 01:13 | <zzeuss> | salem |
| 01:18 | <TSMax_1424841634> | hi |
| 07:58 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: if you have a moment I'd appreciate your take on https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/pull/1767#issuecomment-697440570 |
| 07:58 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: if you don't think that's a problem (or can be fixed separately) I'll rebase the tests and merge that PR |
| 08:57 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: looking now |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: you mean the problem with the annotations in the review draft? |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | that actually wasn’t broken before |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | not sure what broke it |
| 08:59 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: yeah, Domenic's comments |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 09:00 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: and then the smaller question is if there's anything actionable there for follow-up work |
| 09:00 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: the big question is whether my change would interfere with that |
| 09:01 | <MikeSmith> | I think we should go ahead and land your change regardless |
| 09:01 | <MikeSmith> | any issues with the review drafts can be fixed separately if needed |
| 09:02 | <MikeSmith> | I think we should prioritize making just the normal spec itself work as we want |
| 09:03 | <MikeSmith> | it doesn’t seem like any problems with the review-draft formatting should be a high priority at all, given the tiny set of people who we expect to actually use them |
| 09:04 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway, I can still make time to fix the review-draft problems |
| 09:04 | <MikeSmith> | I just don’t think we should block anything else on them |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | nor IMHO should we stop and take extra time to take the changes you already have working and try to integrate them into the review drafts |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | oh I misread a bit what you wrote |
| 09:07 | <MikeSmith> | I read “integrate” where you wrote “interfere” |
| 09:07 | <annevk> | It seems it came out in the wrong order, not sure how IRCCloud managed that |
| 09:08 | <MikeSmith> | well even if you changes do interfere with the follow-up work, we can just adjust the follow-up work as needed |
| 12:07 | <zcorpan> | Wondering why I have so little free disk space, I notice that I have servo, mozilla-central, *and* webkit lying around |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | Not saying it's definitely all your servo target directory, but also, did you heck your servo target directory? :) |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | *check |
| 12:26 | <andreubotella> | annevk, TabAtkins: https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/blob/master/bikeshed/dfnpanels.py#L160 |
| 12:26 | <andreubotella> | the dfn-panels style depends on the --text variable defined in style-colors |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | andreubotella: does this actively break things? I might have time later today to merge dfn styles into standard.css |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | I guess the main question is whether that would break anything in HTML |
| 12:29 | <andreubotella> | as far as I can tell, the black default doesn't change anything |
| 12:30 | <andreubotella> | but it's something I noticed we'd missed |
| 12:31 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: I've removed the servo directory already. I don't know where the servo target directory is or whether I have one |
| 12:37 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: It's under ervo iirc so probably already gone |
| 15:29 | <annevk> | Domenic: euh, is https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5940 a problem with how site is defined? |
| 15:30 | <annevk> | Domenic: at least it seems we might put the same IP address but different port into different agents? |
| 15:30 | <Domenic> | Hmm |
| 15:30 | <Domenic> | Yeah that does seem likely |
| 15:31 | <annevk> | wow |
| 15:31 | <Domenic> | This is pretty busted then.... |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | I wonder if it's as simple as replacing |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | > If origin's host's registrable domain is null, then return origin. |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | with |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | If origin's host's registrable domain is null, then return (origin's scheme, origin's host). |
| 15:32 | <Domenic> | Hmm it very well might be |
| 15:33 | <MassDebates> | there are some css features that I'd like to experiment with, but no browser supports them on loadout! |
| 15:33 | <Domenic> | Well that changes the problem a lot |
| 15:33 | <MassDebates> | How does someone like me experiment with these new features? |
| 15:33 | <Domenic> | From a web compat issue to a spec-is-broken issue. |
| 15:35 | <annevk> | jochen__ would have preferred if we broke ports here, but I'm not sure we can |
| 15:35 | <Domenic> | Right, I mean, it'd get back to my idea of adding use counters and seeing how it goes |
| 15:35 | <Domenic> | Are there other uses of site where your suggested modification might cause problems? |
| 15:37 | <annevk> | I don't think so and it would still fit scheme-and-registrable-domain |
| 15:37 | <annevk> | It just means that a site is never a tuple origin |
| 15:37 | <annevk> | which simplifies a couple of things |
| 16:00 | <Domenic> | annevk: does this impact the definition of (schemelessly) same-site? From my first reading that seems OK... |
| 16:01 | <Domenic> | Why didn't we define same-site as "obtain a site" then compare piecewise? :-/ |
| 18:02 | <andreubotella> | so I've been looking through the resources.whatwg.org stylesheets... and I'm a bit confused by review drafts |
| 18:03 | <andreubotella> | you'd think a version of the spec made for patent review wouldn't be treated as an unstyled build artifact |
| 18:12 | <annevk> | Domenic: not sure that would have caught this and same site was defined first, might still be worth doing though |
| 18:13 | <Domenic> | andreubotella: why would you think that? |
| 18:13 | <andreubotella> | it seems like patent review would be a job for humans |
| 18:14 | <Domenic> | Yeah, but the humans don't need pretty text for it. Just some text should do the trick. |
| 18:16 | <annevk> | (I haven't heard complaints from relevant humans) |
| 18:16 | <andreubotella> | ok, it just struck me as odd |
| 19:14 | <domfarolino> | annevk: |
| 19:14 | <domfarolino> | Whoops |
| 19:14 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Does FF have a tracking bug to change the default referrer policy? |
| 19:20 | <domfarolino> | nvm found https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1589074 |