| 08:26 | <annevk> | Domenic: what defines that :root, :--blah { background:lime } suddenly works if not a change to Selectors? |
| 08:28 | <Domenic> | annevk: My understanding is any time anyone <dfn>s a pseudo-class, it now works. There's no master list of pseudo-classes; even Selectors is just a bunch of <dfn>s. |
| 08:30 | <annevk> | https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/selectors/#invalid a must requirement in a note, beautiful |
| 16:00 | <annevk> | Domenic: would still like a new take on https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8496 from you |
| 16:07 | <annevk> | The Steering Group is considering making a change with regards to which changes require signing the Participant Agreement. In particular allowing "trivial changes" to go through. https://github.com/whatwg/sg/issues/63#issuecomment-1377827797 has a draft definition. (Probably best to engage here first if you have any feedback as that issue thread is already pretty long.) |
| 16:13 | <Dominic Farolino> | Can you throw DOMExceptions from in parallel? I didn't think so, since I thought they had to be constructed on the "main thread", but now I[m not sure |
| 16:30 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: you cannot |
| 16:30 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: you cannot do any IDL/JS in parallel |
| 16:31 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: as I discussed with someone else earlier today, if you imagine a browser consisting of one or more website processes, and a browser process, "in parallel" is the browser process |
| 17:35 | <Alan Stearns> | annevk: my first thought on the draft definition of trivial changes is that an automated correction of broken links might easily run up against the idea that the change should be a few dozen characters at most. |
| 17:41 | <Dominic Farolino> | Yeah that's how I've always envisioned it, browser == in parallel |
| 17:44 | <Dominic Farolino> | My understanding is that dictionaries are not platform objects though, and can be manipulated in parallel in ways that normal IDL objects cannot be, is that correct? |
| 18:08 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: they map to Infra maps, but the values can definitely be IDL objects that cannot cross the boundary |
| 18:09 | <Andreu Botella> | I thought since dictionaries always convert to/from objects without referencing them, it's fine for them to cross the boundary |
| 18:10 | <Andreu Botella> | as long as they don't include a JS or platform object as a field, ofc |
| 18:11 | <annevk> | Right, what you call field, I called values as per https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#map-value |
| 18:11 | <Andreu Botella> | oh, I misunderstood/misread that |
| 18:12 | <Andreu Botella> | "value" is a very overloaded term |
| 18:12 | <annevk> | But yeah, most Infra data structures seem harmless. Ideally we'd formalize it more, but that's also a bunch of work |
| 18:12 | <annevk> | Thanks Alan Stearns |