| 06:39 | <annevk> | Eric Portis (he/him): it currently does, in https://github.com/annevk/orb/issues/30 I mention it as a possible fast path, but to match its processing model we'd have to track it across redirects |
| 06:41 | <annevk> | Eric Portis (he/him): I think if we do it properly (i.e., account for redirects) it's probably reasonable to safelist such responses |
| 10:33 | <Ondřej Žára> | Looks like the "Libera" IRC is not the proper whatwg chat place, right? |
| 10:34 | <Ondřej Žára> | That might explain noone responding to my messages ;-) |
| 10:42 | <annevk> | Ondřej Žára: I don't think we ever advertised anything but Freenode and this channel, and now it's just this channel |
| 10:43 | <Ondřej Žára> | Ondřej Žára: I don't think we ever advertised anything but Freenode and this channel, and now it's just this channel |
| 10:43 | <Ondřej Žára> | Let me repaste my original Libera question then |
| 10:43 | <Ondřej Žára> | are there any general guidelines regarding "js property <-> HTML attribute" reflection for custom elements? |
| 10:43 | <Ondřej Žára> | for instance those interactive components whose properties change quickly (<my-map lat=... lon=...>) |
| 10:43 | <Ondřej Žára> | I recall people suggesting to use attributes as the source of truth |
| 10:43 | <Ondřej Žára> | But that might not hold any more? |
| 10:52 | <annevk> | Might be a good question for #web-components:matrix.org though it's not very active. There's definitely no guidelines in the standard. I'd recommend looking at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#reflect and seeing how it might be applicable for a custom element. At least if you want them to behave like built-in elements. Often that does use the attribute as a source of truth, but you could optimize around that a fair bit. |
| 10:53 | <Ondřej Žára> | Thanks for the pointers. Will read the spec part a bit, then probably re-ask in that channel. |
| 13:58 | <Eric Portis (he/him)> | annevk: Ok, thanks! This would make the story for third party media hosts that want to upgrade resources without requiring every document that embeds from them to also upgrade, well, livable, I think. |
| 14:49 | <annevk> | Eric Portis (he/him): I mean in principle ORB shouldn't really impact anyone, though I suppose there might be some perf implications if you don't have your MIME types in order |
| 14:50 | <annevk> | Eric Portis (he/him): it might be a reasonable way out however for new image formats and over the long term require something like that for all cross-origin fetches |
| 16:03 | <smaug> | Domenic: will be there in the meeting real soon |
| 17:59 | <sefeng> | Noam Rosenthal: Just want to make sure I understand the rationale behind the LargestContentfulPaint spec. So if the image is expanded, we don't report the actual painted size, but rather we report the intrinsic size of the image |
| 17:59 | <sefeng> | is it because we don't want web devs to game the metric? |
| 18:06 | <Eric Portis (he/him)> | annevk: “in principle ORB shouldn't really impact anyone” Half of all <img>s load cross-origin; I’d suspect CSS background-image to have a similar breakdown. My mental model of ORB previously was: in order to adopt new image formats, lots of HTML was going to have to change, and there just wouldn’t be a way to use new image formats across origins in CSS. Big impact! Mitigated by CORP. |
| 18:08 | <annevk> | Eric Portis (he/him): I see, new media formats definitely have that wrinkle atm |
| 18:08 | <annevk> | Eric Portis (he/him): I'd be okay with this compromise |
| 18:08 | <annevk> | Eric Portis (he/him): do you want to put it forward in https://github.com/annevk/orb/issues/3? |
| 18:09 | <Eric Portis (he/him)> | annevk: will do! |
| 18:15 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Noam Rosenthal: Just want to make sure I understand the rationale behind the LargestContentfulPaint spec. So if the image is expanded, we don't report the actual painted size, but rather we report the intrinsic size of the image |
| 18:18 | <sefeng> | Noam Rosenthal: I see, I start to understand the penalty factor thing..but if a scaled 1x1 image is the largest, what's wrong of reporting it..? |
| 18:30 | <Noam Rosenthal> | It’s ok but you don’t want to report it as 1000x1000 |
| 18:43 | <sefeng> | Noam Rosenthal: why don't we if that's what gets painted? |