| 06:52 | <foolip> | About the new static Response.json() which can't be documented in MDN/BCD yet: https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/issues/16613 |
| 06:56 | <Ms2ger 💉💉> | Oops |
| 06:58 | <sideshowbarker> | “hope this doesn't happen much” indeed |
| 07:01 | <sideshowbarker> | foolip: Another possible option is to make a subfeature of api.Response.json named "static" — which is ugly and backwards but at least we wouldn’t need a separate filename or new subdirectory (and no mass updates of existing data) |
| 07:01 | <annevk> | foolip: perhaps you could do something like api.Response$statics.json, but stuffing prototype in all of the existing members would be correct |
| 07:04 | <foolip> | It would solve the problem, and would have the benefit that it tells BCD consumers what's static and what's not, but it would be a big change. It's notable that it's not done even for the javascript.* data, even though .prototype. is in the page titles (but not URLs) there, see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/groupByToMap for example. |
| 07:09 | <sideshowbarker> | Yeah in hindsight I guess it all should have been done that way from the beginning but at this point it seems like correcting it globally would maybe be a case of the cure being worse than the disease |
| 07:15 | <sideshowbarker> | As far as my We wouldn’t want that of course — but I know the code for generating the BCD tables very well, and it would be easy to add some special-handling to it to cause it ignore any case of |
| 08:06 | <Jake Archibald> | dlrobertson: what other parts of the range syntax do browsers support? |
| 08:30 | <Jake Archibald> | (I've replied to the issue) |
| 10:28 | <Noam Rosenthal> | annevk: About the controller PR, I ended up spelling out all the initiator types, it does feel cleaner than a string. The PR build passes now and I went through all the comments again, I think it's ready. |
| 12:38 | <dlrobertson> | dlrobertson: what other parts of the range syntax do browsers support? |
| 12:45 | <dlrobertson> | tl;dr I think this would in practice only be used for blob slicing (and we don't have to support this form of range there) |
| 14:20 | <Domenic> | foolip: sideshowbarker: IMO the more we can move the ecosystem away from incorrectly thinking of prototype/instance methods and properties as static ones the better... I'm excited that this is providing a forcing function. I hope one day strings like "Document.createElement" never appear in anyone's infrastructure... |
| 14:45 | <foolip> | foolip: sideshowbarker: IMO the more we can move the ecosystem away from incorrectly thinking of prototype/instance methods and properties as static ones the better... I'm excited that this is providing a forcing function. I hope one day strings like "Document.createElement" never appear in anyone's infrastructure... |
| 14:46 | <foolip> | Someone would have to go on a long and dedicated cleanup campaign to sort this out across MDN, BCD and maybe other places. |
| 15:39 | <Domenic> | Shorthand doesn't seem necessary, .prototype is not a lot of extra characters |
| 15:40 | <Domenic> | I agree this is a lot of tech debt. Like all tech debt, it was waiting to bite us one day. You can keep paying interest or you can pay down the principle. |
| 16:47 | <raphaellouis> | Hi all! What do you all think of this idea? |
| 16:48 | <raphaellouis> | https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/issues/185 |
| 16:48 | <raphaellouis> | I open an issue - I would like to know the opinion of everyone here. |
| 16:49 | <raphaellouis> | https://example.com/#:~:text=character_start&character_end&elementHTML |
| 16:49 | <raphaellouis> | https://example.com/#:~:text=characters&words&lines&without_white_space¶graphs&spaces&sentences |
| 16:50 | <raphaellouis> | My idea is to search text snippets according to character size or html reference |
| 16:50 | <raphaellouis> | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat#:~:text=38,7,1,32,1,6,1 |
| 16:50 | <raphaellouis> | "characters": "38", "words": "7", "lines":"1", "without white space":"32", "paragraphs": "1", "spaces": "6", "sentences":"1", "string": "Like almost all members of the Felidae" |
| 16:52 | <raphaellouis> | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat#:~:text=0&38&h3 |
| 17:18 | <raphaellouis> | please, I would like to know the opinion of everyone here. |
| 17:47 | <raphaellouis> | is anyone online? |
| 17:53 | <raphaellouis> | Is this idea good or bad? |
| 17:57 | <raphaellouis> | if you think this idea is bad, an alternative would be this idea/concept: https://discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal-built-in-e2e-encryption-into-web-browsers/5897 - Hi all! A question is it possible to use the FIDO protocol and hardware keys through E2E in browsers? |
| 17:58 | <raphaellouis> | another doubt/concept: 3. Integrating css+js+html into a single language will allow what many call Embedded markup as RTF - Rich Text Format? |
| 17:59 | <raphaellouis> |
|
| 18:24 | <Domenic> | raphaellouis: I think you should consider that if you are not getting responses, then this forum might not be the best place for your ideas. In general people most interested in hearing about a proposal for a specification are already on the specification's issue tracker. Or people interested in hearing new general ideas are already subscribed to the WICG discourse. Going to an unrelated standards forum's chat room and linking to your idea is maybe not a good way of interacting with that standards forum. |
| 19:21 | <raphaellouis> | @Domenic thank you for feedback |