| 03:19 | <MikeSmith> | when you say, “pivoted away from workers and to scheduling” and “for people who *are* using workers on the web”, it sounds like you’re suggesting that any use cases that could be met with workers could be satisfied completely with a native scheduling API instead, and that would be better? |
| 03:19 | <MikeSmith> | or am I reading too much into what you wrote? |
| 04:26 | <shu_> | i’ll push back a bit, speaking for V8, i think there’re capability gaps in the platform to be bridged for better multithreaded programming that’s complementary to scheduling. if we bridge those, or perhaps while bridging them, something like blöcks become more attractive to the platform |
| 04:59 | <annevk> | shu_: what are the gaps? C threads in Wasm? |
| 08:19 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/console/pull/187 |
| 08:19 | <annevk> | (or someone else with review power) |
| 09:07 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: are you interested in solving https://github.com/whatwg/quirks/pull/53? |
| 09:08 | <annevk> | there are some auto references it's confused about and I wasn't able to find a solution within 30s, but I can look longer later |
| 09:17 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: I can fix |
| 09:17 | <zcorpan_> | looks like css2 is confusing bikeshed |
| 09:17 | <zcorpan_> | or quirks is doing something wrong |
| 09:20 | <zcorpan_> | https://github.com/whatwg/quirks/pull/54 |
| 09:34 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: mind pushing that as a fixup commit to the other PR? |
| 09:34 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: and then I'll squash land if you approve |
| 09:35 | <annevk> | or you can approve and I'll do it |
| 09:35 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: why not land #54 and rebase 53? |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: it's not what I did elsewhere, but sure |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: still need your approval |
| 14:40 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: No, I'm not going that far. I'm saying that if your goal is to improve performance, trying to move currently-main-thread stuff to workers is not a great investment in the general case, because of the communications overhead. E.g. people talked about doing all the "M" and "C" parts of MVC in a worker; some benchmarking showed that any gains in removing main-thread contention there are lost by the cross-thread |
| 14:40 | <Domenic> | serialization overhead. |
| 14:41 | <Domenic> | annevk: my comment about not unnecessarily removing the centralized link defaults stands on console. |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | Domenic: I don't see that comment? |
| 14:42 | <Domenic> | annevk: oops, was sitting in drafts :( |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | Domenic: this isn't about defaults though |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | Domenic: there's a difference between for=/ whatever list thing URL defines |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | which I guess has for=URLSearchParams if I would have to go from memory |
| 14:43 | <Domenic> | Link defaults says that whenever you see [=list=] it should be Infra's for="/" list |
| 14:43 | <Domenic> | You deleted that and instead made it [=/list=] everywhere |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | I mean, that's not quite what it does |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | There's a difference between defaulting to / and specifying some specific document that might change over time |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | I think not listing specific documents is better |
| 14:45 | <Domenic> | I understand, which is why I said it's the editor's call. |
| 14:45 | <Domenic> | (I disagree) |
| 14:45 | <Domenic> | I don't think it's something that should be changed in a "link to the RD" commit. |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | Domenic: also, if Infra gains another <dfn>list</dfn> it'll continue complaining |
| 14:46 | <Domenic> | I understand it's your preference |
| 14:46 | <Domenic> | I don't think it's appropriate to change in this PR |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | sigh |
| 14:47 | <Domenic> | (and I don't particularly have the energy at the moment to argue about why I prefer the opposite.) |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | Someone else can do this then |
| 14:47 | <Domenic> | Wow, so you won't help link to RDs unless you get to make unrelated changes to how standards are done? |
| 14:49 | <annevk> | I mean, I was just trying to fix the build and your attitude about it made me lose my energy, so to say |
| 14:49 | <Domenic> | Fair enough |
| 15:55 | <shu_> | annevk: i see two areas where there're gaps: 1) better support for actor-like run-to-completion style programming. in particular, i'm thinking better transferring of JS object graphs (including code), 2) more useful racy accesses on shared memory (i.e. "traditional" multithreaded programming) without having to come up with your own object models and write your own mutexes |
| 16:06 | <noamr> | Hi TabAtkins and annevk, I want to help progress on https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5165 and https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5165 (EXIF orientation/resolution and same-origin). What would be a good next step? Create a PR for HTML spec for the same-origin/orientation issue? |
| 17:15 | <Domenic> | Wow the spam is really ramping up |
| 17:16 | <Domenic> | Oh it's probably October in some parts of the world |
| 17:19 | <Domenic> | There's a new "spam" label we can use according to https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/faq/ but this still sucks |
| 19:27 | <Domenic> | Eyeing this option... https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/m3utstGN/repository-interaction-limits.png |
| 19:43 | <TabAtkins> | that seems useful to turn on |
| 19:43 | <TabAtkins> | noamr: Plz ping me tomorrow! |
| 19:43 | <noamr> | sure TabAtkins. |
| 19:44 | <noamr> | thanks! |
| 19:44 | <zcorpan_> | Domenic: can it be enabled for a whole org? |
| 19:45 | <Domenic> | Looks like it can |
| 19:46 | <Domenic> | I worry a bit about putting off legitimate contributors or e.g. browser employees who haven't done much GitHubbing... |
| 19:50 | <zcorpan_> | Domenic: yeah. How severe is the spam problem? Also that setting limits all interactions, not only PRs |
| 19:50 | <Domenic> | About 4 spam PRs per hour |
| 19:51 | <zcorpan_> | bleh |
| 19:56 | <zcorpan_> | Domenic: only for html, though? |
| 19:56 | <Domenic> | Yeah |
| 19:56 | <zcorpan_> | Maybe we can enable that setting for html, and document in CONTRIBUTING what to do if you're trying to open a PR and are blocked |
| 19:57 | <zcorpan_> | (or trying to comment or open a new issue, which will also be blocked) |
| 19:57 | <zcorpan_> | maybe github should provide more granularity here |
| 20:07 | <zcorpan_> | sent a ticket to github support |
| 21:05 | <croraf> | I know that per HTML standard it is erroneous to put "button" or "input type=checkbox" inside the "button". |
| 21:06 | <croraf> | But what about ARIA's "role=button" inside "button" or inside "role=button"? |
| 21:06 | <croraf> | Shouldn't this be consistent? |
| 21:13 | <zcorpan_> | croraf: that would make sense |
| 21:13 | <zcorpan_> | I don't think ARIA has many content model rules |
| 21:18 | <zcorpan_> | croraf: file an issue for aria? |
| 21:22 | <croraf> | zcorpan_, I dont know, because even the browsers do not conform to that. |
| 21:22 | <croraf> | I tried button in button, and I don't even get a warning. |
| 21:23 | <zcorpan_> | croraf: well, this is a conformance requirement for documents, not for UAs |
| 21:23 | <zcorpan_> | browsers are not required to warn you when you use invalid HTML |
| 21:25 | <croraf> | zcorpan_, who are UA's the implementors? what that shortcut means? |
| 21:26 | <croraf> | Not also sure what you mean by "conformance requirement for documents" |
| 21:26 | <Domenic> | Woohoo, https://blog.domenic.me/hacktoberfest/ is #1 on HackerNews :D |
| 21:26 | <zcorpan_> | Sorry, UA = user agent, like browsers (but not only browsers) |
| 21:28 | <zcorpan_> | croraf: different requirements in specs apply to different conformance classes. In this case, disallowing buttons in buttons is a requirement for web developers / authors / documents only |
| 21:29 | <zcorpan_> | Domenic: s/then for hosting/them for hosting/ |
| 21:29 | <Domenic> | ty |
| 21:32 | <devsnek> | haven't been to the orange site in a while |
| 21:32 | <devsnek> | forgot how disconnected the comments are |
| 21:32 | <croraf> | zcorpan_, I see |
| 21:33 | <devsnek> | i wonder why the html spec is getting so much, when node hasn't gotten any |
| 21:33 | <Domenic> | It seems really random |
| 21:33 | <Domenic> | I thought it was popularity |
| 21:34 | <Domenic> | But some people are saying their computer club website is getting them |
| 21:34 | <devsnek> | btw vultr/choopa is very good |
| 21:35 | <croraf> | zcorpan_, I found a sentence now in ARIA specs: For example, an element with role=button is interactive content and therefore cannot contain interactive content descendants. |
| 21:37 | <zcorpan_> | croraf: ooh, good catch! so it's here https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/#allowed-aria-roles-states-and-properties not in the main aria spec |
| 21:37 | <zcorpan_> | too many aria specs |
| 21:38 | <zcorpan_> | MikeSmith: this seems to not be implemented in validator.nu ^ |
| 21:39 | <croraf> | zcorpan_, yes, I think that is the same document I'm checking: https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#allowed-aria-roles-states-and-properties |
| 21:40 | <croraf> | but I see there are other documents |
| 21:41 | <zcorpan_> | croraf: yeah but TR/ are often outdated compared to the editor's draft |
| 21:42 | <zcorpan_> | first thing you want to do when landing in a w3c spec is to click the "Latest editor's draft" link at the top |
| 21:50 | <croraf> | I see. |
