| 01:18 | <derpadmin> | anyone had success with service workers + push notifications ? |
| 01:19 | <derpadmin> | my service worker register on chrome desktop but not firefox |
| 01:19 | <derpadmin> | unsure about mobile yet |
| 02:44 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: I notice the Motivation section of for the the Origin isolation feature at https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5683766104162304 was changed to drop mention of “side-channel protection (e.g. against Spectre)” |
| 03:27 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: indeed. See https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/6192 for some discussion about why including that in the messaging could be bad. |
| 03:27 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 03:30 | <MikeSmith> | I see |
| 03:31 | <MikeSmith> | Origin-Agent-Cluster does seem good |
| 03:32 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: but I guess my next question would be, is the feature now also going to be renamed? I mean, not just the header |
| 07:17 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: the feature is the header, no? |
| 13:12 | <croraf> | When you navigate to a new history item, shouldn't the browser try to set the scrollTop position of the html element to 0? |
| 15:01 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: well in the spec, the title of the feature is “Origin isolation” |
| 15:01 | <MikeSmith> | would that not need to be renamed? |
| 15:03 | <MikeSmith> | and also window.originIsolated |
| 16:59 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I guess so, Domenic is driving that |
| 16:59 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: maybe ask in the issue? |
| 16:59 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: seems like we should make a decision about that 🙂 |
| 17:01 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 17:05 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: about the “Track the incumbent settings and active script in Promise callbacks” thing, I notice that patch never actually uses the term “incumbent realm” |
| 17:06 | <MikeSmith> | and I notice that while “incumbent Realm” is defined in the spec at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#concept-incumbent-realm, the term is never actually normatively referenced in the spec |
| 17:07 | <MikeSmith> | it’s referenced only once, at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#realms-settings-objects-global-objects:concept-incumbent-realm, in a non-normative example |
| 17:07 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I guess we use the settings object instead that it is 1:1 with? It's just a convenience thing in the end |
| 17:08 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I figured that is why, but it’s still a bit confusing |
| 17:09 | <MikeSmith> | especially since MDN is using the term now, in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise#Incumbent_realm_tracking |
| 17:09 | <MikeSmith> | so maybe I should just get that MDN article rewritten to align with the actual language in the spec |
| 17:10 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: well, hmm, does MDN distinguish between realms and globals? |
| 17:10 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I guess I would kinda expect MDN to only talk about global objects as web developers don't really have to know the distinction most of the time, but it depends... |
| 17:11 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I think it’s a bit more than web developers need to know |
| 17:11 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, the first sentence of that MDN article section is this: |
| 17:11 | <MikeSmith> | > JavaScript code has a concept of a realm — this can be roughly thought of as the global object. |
| 17:12 | <MikeSmith> | anyway I guess I’ll raise an MDN issue for it |
| 18:24 | <Mek> | hmm, https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5305 made normative changes to BroadcastChannel behavior, it included tests that showed chrome was failing those tests, yet it landed without implementation bugs filed afaict... Isn't the reason to have checkboxes in the PR template so somebody can make sure the checkboxes are checked? |
| 18:26 | <Mek> | (to be clear, I agree with the changes, the PR was fixing a spec issue I originally filed many years ago. But a implementation bug would have been nice to make sure our implementation was actually updated to the newly changed spec) |
| 18:54 | <annevk> | Mek: I just left a comment, afaict the test failing in Chrome wasn't modified |
| 18:55 | <Mek> | both the name and expectations of the test were changed in the wpt PR as far as I can tell? |
| 18:56 | <annevk> | Mek: sigh, right you are |
| 18:56 | <annevk> | Mek: would it help if I filed a bug at this point? |
| 18:56 | <Mek> | I just filed one myself, so no longer needed |
| 18:58 | <annevk> | Mek: great, I updated my comment; hopefully this won't happen again |
| 18:58 | <Mek> | annevk: Thanks! |