| 01:14 | <sideshowbarker> | Jeffrey Yasskin: TabAtkins: If we have a general way to add arbitrary anchors to any line in a spec that we want to share a link for, is there a specific separate need for some additional syntax for manually marking up links to steps in particular? |
| 01:21 | <TabAtkins> | That issue was specifically about adding an id to markdown lis, which isn't possible normally |
| 01:21 | <sideshowbarker> | Ok |
| 01:22 | <sideshowbarker> | Having Bikeshed _automatically_ generate anchors for all steps is something that'd imaginably be pretty useful. But maybe that'd be overkill |
| 01:27 | <sideshowbarker> | That issue was specifically about adding an id to markdown lis, which isn't possible normally |
| 01:35 | <sideshowbarker> | At least, manually giving a step an ID that's the same its current step number seems fragile and imprudent, since the step number can change later. So it'd be better anyway to give it some semantic ID, or even just some opaque ID |
| 14:16 | <Yagiz Nizipli> | We recently launched Ada URL parser v2. We shared some benchmarks in this blog post for the interested parties: https://www.yagiz.co/announcing-ada-url-parser-v2-0/ |
| 15:29 | <snek> | what if browsers had an api to get the etld+1 of a url? for a single website, downloading the entire public suffix list is a lot but since browsers already have it, and they already have url parsing apis... |
| 15:31 | <snek> | i guess there is an old issue here... https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/528 |
| 15:31 | <snek> | seems like it would be very easy to implement |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | snek: needs clarity on use cases and web developer demand, e.g., Stack Overflow questions |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | snek: if you can show a bunch of websites bundle packages for this that would probably sell it |
| 15:33 | <snek> | that's a tough thing to show |
| 15:33 | <snek> | for example for my use case, if i can't convince browsers to add this, i will just highlight the entire domain, rather than shipping the public suffix list in my website |
| 15:33 | <annevk> | That's mainly why it hasn't happened yet. There's also some people that really dislike the PSL, despite everything building on top of it |
| 15:34 | <annevk> | Please add a comment with your use case snek |
| 15:34 | <Andreu Botella> | Also, if this API is part of the URL spec, it would be hard for server-side JS runtimes to implement, since they don't currently include the PSL |
| 15:36 | <annevk> | snek: also if any other utility methods come to mind I'd very much like to hear about them, ideally in the form of issues against the spec |
| 15:36 | <snek> | sure i guess |
| 15:36 | <snek> | i will say, my experience with whatwg is that opening issues doesn't really do anything |
| 15:37 | <snek> | you have to go find whoever works at google on the area you are interested in and talk to them |
| 15:37 | <annevk> | snek: some stuff can take a long time for sure, but it's better to have it recorded than not recorded |
| 18:38 | <Alexander Kalenik> | hey, I am going through Navigables spec and got a bit confused by HTML document loading step: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/document-lifecycle.html#navigate-html which is 11.1 step in "Populating a session history entry". I found https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/8095#issue-1300437093 and see that the problem appears to be that Fetch callbacks got introduced but this part of spec hasn't been updated yet. I'm curious if anyone can give a hint of how document loading might look with relevant Fetch spec taken into account. I have vague idea that processResponseEndOfBody should be specified to do something about firing "load" event (which is also confusing because document does not exist on the step that does fetch call so callback cannot capture it). And I am wondering on what step and using what mechanism response body should be piped into HTML parser. |
| 22:12 | <Conan Kudo> | cwilso: hey, is there something I can follow related to this? https://github.com/whatwg/sg/issues/212 |
| 22:34 | <TabAtkins> | At least, manually giving a step an ID that's the same its current step number seems fragile and imprudent, since the step number can change later. So it'd be better anyway to give it some semantic ID, or even just some opaque ID |
| 22:34 | <TabAtkins> | But as long as it's being added manually anyway, can't an HTML element be added within the text content of the markdown li? * <a id=foo></a> ...? |
| 22:35 | <TabAtkins> | I mean, someone could write that, but (a) it's cleaner to put the ID directly on the li if that's what you're linking to, and (b) I can more consistently detect an ID on the li and create that little visible floating anchor, while that's less reliable if the ID might come from something in the content. |