06:57 | <sideshowbarker> | I guess https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/frameElement ? |
06:57 | <Noam Rosenthal> | so I’m now realizing that while that seems to work in some cases of cross-origin iframes, it returns null in others |
06:58 | <sideshowbarker> | yeah I thought it never worked cross-origin — but then I found for the case of the iframe at the end of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Notifications_API/Using_the_Notifications_API#replacing_existing_notifications it did actually seem to work |
06:59 | <sideshowbarker> | but maybe I was just testing it wrong |
06:59 | <sideshowbarker> | anyway, reverting to just the usual window.self !== window.top |
07:01 | <sideshowbarker> | oh, cool to see there’s a .top TLD now — recursively appropriate… |
07:01 | <sideshowbarker> | makes for some good fun and confusion for any technical writer who has to document it |
07:02 | <sideshowbarker> | kind of a “Who’s on first?” thing |
07:02 | <sideshowbarker> | “the top top-level domain“ |
07:02 | <sideshowbarker> | or “top top” for short |
08:07 | <annevk> | frameElement can only work cross-origin when document.domain is involved and the documents are same-site. If you find it does something in other cases I'd love to see a testcase. |
08:21 | <sideshowbarker> |
|
08:21 | <sideshowbarker> | I will re-try it and see |
08:45 | <annevk> | Domenic: Yoav Weiss: shouldn't the introduction of new browsing contexts be done in a bit more coordinated manner? Re: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/jr2fQUh6xEI/m/Oqge6pPtAAAJ |
09:03 | <Yoav Weiss> | annevk: Potentially... This effort is still in very early stages AFAIK. I think it'd be helpful for the team if you chimed in on that thread to say what you'd like to see defined for this to be interoperable. |
09:14 | <sideshowbarker> |
|
11:25 | <Luca Casonato> | Jake Archibald: I don't want to be a bother, but have you been able to take a look at this? Trying to judge if Chrome would be opposed to this in any way. |
12:44 | <Ms2ger 💉💉> | Yoav Weiss: hey, do you know if you'll have time soonish to review https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/pull/302 https://github.com/w3c/server-timing/pull/84 ? |
12:46 | <Yoav Weiss> | Apologies for my slowness and thank for pinging! I'll review today |
12:47 | <Ms2ger 💉💉> | Thanks! |
15:50 | <Domenic> | Domenic: Yoav Weiss: shouldn't the introduction of new browsing contexts be done in a bit more coordinated manner? Re: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/jr2fQUh6xEI/m/Oqge6pPtAAAJ |
15:53 | <architect88> | Hello everyone. I'm working on my first template and can't figure out the nuances of semantic markup (in automatic key). The first question is about the <aside> tag. How correct is it to place the all sidebar zone in it? because the content of the sidebar can contain a variety of elements, such as widgets, navigation elements, search filters, ad units, etc. The second question is about the <header> tag.
maybe it's better to move the <h1> from the <article> or from the <artcile> and <main>, like this?
which design is more correct or is it better to do it in a completely different way? |
15:57 | <annevk> | Domenic: there's another question as to whether it should count as auxiliary or nested from a privacy perspective |
15:58 | <annevk> | Domenic: depends a bit on whether it can show UI and what that UI would end up blaming as the responsible party, too |
16:54 | <Domenic> | Well I think the idea is for it to not show any UI (like other PiP windows). Which is pretty scary, so, I'm curious what the security folks say... |
17:19 | <annevk> | Domenic: so all APIs that could/would trigger some kind of user agent dialog would have to be disabled? |
17:20 | <Domenic> | annevk: yes, I think so. I don't think the team has done the audit to make sure that lines up well with their plans but I filed the issue to tell them such an audit is necessary. |
17:20 | <npd> | does "PIP" stand for "next generation of annoying pop-up ads that are hard to close"? ;) |
17:20 | <annevk> | If there's no UI indicating the origin of the PiP I'd think it would have to be fully partitioned |
17:21 | <annevk> | npd: I had a similar thought |
17:21 | <npd> | more seriously, I did find the picture-in-picture explainer. and I am scared about abuse |
17:21 | <Domenic> | does "PIP" stand for "next generation of annoying pop-up ads that are hard to close"? ;) |
17:22 | <npd> | well, this isn't just videos any more, it sounds like, and any user gesture can trigger it? |
17:22 | <Domenic> | Hmm yeah I was under the impression there were more restrictions but maybe that's the case... |
17:23 | <Domenic> | I guess it closes when the opener closes automatically, that's some slight mitigation... |
17:23 | <npd> | I guess it closes when the opener closes automatically, that's some slight mitigation... |
17:25 | <Domenic> | npd: annevk: if you were able to file these issues on the repo I think they'd be much appreciated, especially the privacy/partitioning/user prompts one as the full constraints there aren't obvious to me. |
17:25 | <Domenic> | I can give it a shot otherwise. |
17:27 | <annevk> | Filed https://github.com/steimelchrome/document-pip-explainer/issues/9 |
19:05 | <completesagalego> | is anyone there |
19:07 | <completesagalego> | completesagalego: |
19:09 | <completesagalego> | i go for dinner |
19:18 | <npd> | https://github.com/steimelchrome/document-pip-explainer/issues/10 |
19:32 | <completesagalego> | what |
19:47 | <completesagalego> | is anyone there |
19:50 | <npd> | is anyone there is this the group you were looking for? |
19:57 | <completesagalego> | yes it was |
20:13 | <completesagalego> | ooh cool |
20:14 | <completesagalego> | angry video game nerd |
22:46 | <smaug> | Ms2ger 💉💉: what is a Shadow realm? |
22:48 | <smaug> | aha, /me finds https://github.com/tc39/proposal-shadowrealm/issues/331 |
22:48 | <smaug> | Still don't know what it is , and whether it is related to shadow dom 🙂 |
22:51 | <smaug> | aha, perhaps https://github.com/tc39/proposal-shadowrealm |
22:51 | <smaug> | confusing name |