| 07:38 | <annevk> | Very cool that we're almost rid of Travis CI |
| 10:54 | <MikeSmith> | I’ve spent the biggest single chunk of my time today trying to read up a bit on navigator.sendBeacon() and the current state of implementations around it, and then also the related issue of the visibilitychange not firing as expected in Safari when document.visibilityState transitions to "hidden" |
| 10:56 | <MikeSmith> | ended up adding warnings about the visibilitychange issue to all the related MDN articles, and raised https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/pull/6763 to make corresponding updates to BCD for it |
| 10:57 | <MikeSmith> | ...and then also raised https://github.com/mdn/sprints/issues/3722 about getting the MDN sendBeacon() article updated with an example that’s accurate |
| 10:59 | <MikeSmith> | and in between read through four related WebKit bugzilla issue (and adding comments and Related Bug entries that caused god knows how many other people to get spammed with notifications) |
| 11:01 | <MikeSmith> | and it all began earlier in the day from just deciding to casually glance at https://volument.com/blog/sendbeacon-is-broken |
| 11:01 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, I hope it leads to a resolution that helps cause a little less pain and frustration for web developers |
| 11:02 | <MikeSmith> | I’ll spend the rest of my time today praying.. |
| 12:10 | <MassDebates> | I asked a question here yesterday, but I'm not sure if I didn't receive a response because it was errant or in the wrong place, or simply because I should wait longer. |
| 12:10 | <MassDebates> | How would I experiment with the css features not available on any browser? Is it possible for me to do? |
| 12:39 | <MikeSmith> | MassDebates: I don’t personally know how to answer that question, and I suspect others here don’t either — and I'd guess that’s why nobody responded. |
| 12:40 | <MassDebates> | Ah, okay, so errant question then |
| 12:40 | <MassDebates> | Thanks for letting me know. |
| 12:40 | <MikeSmith> | well the only response I can think of is to ask you questions back |
| 12:40 | <MikeSmith> | like, what do you mean by “experiment”? |
| 12:40 | <MassDebates> | I wanted to try writing some css for it and implement it and see how it looks. |
| 12:40 | <MassDebates> | for example this property: |
| 12:40 | <MassDebates> | https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/text-overflow |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 12:41 | <MassDebates> | I've made a bunch of small things that have recreated fade in many ways, and I was hoping I could try the real deal. |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | by “implement”, you mean, write browser code for it? |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | like, a browser patch for Chrome? |
| 12:41 | <MassDebates> | I was hoping I wouldn't have to |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 12:42 | <MassDebates> | I was wondering if there was an actively worked on version that I could subscribe to the version of that would support some experimental features. |
| 12:42 | <MikeSmith> | I see |
| 12:42 | <MassDebates> | For example I signed up for a beta patch with Brave and I tried out some of their new features before they got rolled out to everyone. |
| 12:42 | <MassDebates> | I'm not sure if that exists for the people writing the browser patches themselves. |
| 12:42 | <MikeSmith> | I guess you know that browsers have some options that you can enable to turn on experimental features? |
| 12:43 | <MassDebates> | Yes, which is part of the reason why I came here |
| 12:43 | <MassDebates> | For example I'm familiar with https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/canary/ |
| 12:43 | <MikeSmith> | OK, I don’t know if there is such an option for enabling experimental support for text-overflow; I will look now |
| 12:44 | <MikeSmith> | wait |
| 12:44 | <MikeSmith> | text-overflow is already supported, isn’t it? |
| 12:44 | <MassDebates> | yes |
| 12:44 | <MassDebates> | I'm looking at fade |
| 12:45 | <MassDebates> | The fade keyword clips the overflowing inline content and applies a fade-out effect near the edge of the line box with complete transparency at the edge. |
| 12:45 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 12:46 | <MikeSmith> | so sometimes the Browser Compatibility tables in MDN will have specific information about values that have experimental support |
| 12:47 | <MikeSmith> | and the data for that comes from, e.g., https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/blob/master/css/properties/text-overflow.json |
| 12:47 | <MassDebates> | Okay |
| 12:48 | <MassDebates> | OKay thank you |
| 12:48 | <MikeSmith> | but if I look at the data there for that fade value at https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/blob/master/css/properties/text-overflow.json#L119, I don’t see any notes about experimental support |
| 12:48 | <MassDebates> | Right |
| 12:48 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, so that’s a data point which suggests that no browsers have implemented it yet, even experimentally |
| 12:49 | <MassDebates> | I see, I misunderstood the table. I didn't see a value with experimental, only a key |
| 12:49 | <MikeSmith> | ...and so there’s not gonna be any option you can flip on to try it |
| 12:50 | <MassDebates> | The people that make the drafts - how do they see what they're making? |
| 12:50 | <MassDebates> | the css spec |
| 12:50 | <MassDebates> | they write up quick little sandbox pared down concept examples? |
| 12:51 | <MikeSmith> | no in most cases they write a definition of the required behavior without actually writing any actual code to implement it |
| 12:52 | <MikeSmith> | the people who write the specs are usually not the people who write the browser code |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmith> | the spec comes first, the browser code comes after — sometimes very long after something is first specified |
| 12:54 | <MikeSmith> | and in the meantime there really is no way to test out a feature in the spec prior to it getting first implemented in a browser |
| 12:55 | <MassDebates> | That's a lot of trust to give to browsers |
| 12:55 | <MassDebates> | a lot of work too, I'm sure |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | well I guess it’s also a lot of trust to give to spec writers |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | but in practice, it’s in iterative process |
| 12:55 | <MassDebates> | Why? Browsers aren't compelled to support anything spec writers put out, no? |
| 12:56 | <MassDebates> | What trust is given to them? |
| 12:56 | <MikeSmith> | well spec writers don’t just pull stuff out of their hats |
| 12:56 | <MassDebates> | I'm not saying that, and I'm not saying they don't do things intelligently |
| 12:56 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I understand |
| 12:56 | <MassDebates> | ok |
| 12:57 | <MassDebates> | Okay, thank you for educating me on this process |
| 12:57 | <MassDebates> | I hope I didn't take you away from anything urgent/pressing. |
| 12:57 | <MassDebates> | I appreciate your time. |
| 12:57 | <MikeSmith> | cheers |
| 12:57 | <MikeSmith> | that’s what this channel is here for |