| 00:44 | <Domenic> | snek: how do you anticipate this being done, if none of the browsers are interested in your change? Put stuff in standards which no browsers ship? |
| 00:45 | <Domenic> | Ultimately, we are writing standards about what those browsers ship. If we're not doing that, there's no point. Participation here is open and welcome (unlike other SDOs, no paying needed!) but yes, if you don't get your change agreed to be shipped by those organizations, you can't accomplish much. |
| 00:46 | <snek> | i've never had to beg browsers to want to implement my thing at tc39 |
| 00:46 | <snek> | maybe take a look at their process |
| 00:46 | <Domenic> | Yes, you have. They've decided to agree, because language teams are generally sitting around looking for things to do, in my experience. (Sometimes they start whole new languages just to have something to do!) |
| 00:47 | <Domenic> | If they thought your thing was not worth their engineering time, they would object. That's how it works at the WHATWG too, it's just that instead of making someone stand up and say "I object", we require the proposer to get their affirmative consent |
| 00:48 | <snek> | whatever the case |
| 00:48 | <snek> | even walking to the browsers with spec, tests, and implementation work |
| 00:48 | <snek> | is not enough for whatwg |
| 00:48 | <snek> | i doubt there is a simple solution but |
| 00:48 | <snek> | the current process is insurmountable |
| 00:48 | <Domenic> | Yep, it looks like you've had some browsers object to your feature. I'm sorry, but that happens, no matter the SDO. |
| 00:49 | <Domenic> | Many people surmount this; many features are shipped every release, including from non-employees. I'm sorry you had a bad experience once, but it's not representative. |
| 00:49 | <snek> | i mean there is a way it could get done |
| 00:49 | <snek> | i'm just not willing to do it |
| 00:50 | <snek> | its humiliating to have to crawl to some guys feet and ask him to pretty please consider my feature |
| 00:50 | <Domenic> | I guess at this point you're just being melodramatic, so this isn't a very productive conversation. I'll move on. |
| 00:51 | <snek> | lol |
| 01:43 | <Shane Brown> | Has my husband Shane brown been on here |
| 06:02 | <annevk> | Is this about the WebSockets enhancement? I tend to agree I haven't seen a lot of ask for supporting non-ws(s) schemes there from web developers. |
| 06:07 | <annevk> | Hmm, apparently html5lib-tests doesn't discover change in attribute qualified name |
| 06:59 | <annevk> | And also, at least some html5lib test runners end up sorting attributes |
| 19:41 | <hacknorris> | someone knows why neither on chrome (at me chromium tbh) neither firefox this doesnt display like on your docs? |
| 19:41 | <hacknorris> | like from this part :https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/input.html#range-state-(type=range) |
| 19:51 | <hacknorris> | any1 why ? |
| 19:51 | <Andreu Botella> | those sections are notes, and they only give a suggested possible rendering |
| 19:52 | <hacknorris> | but why 2 most popular browsers just ignore it ? |
| 19:53 | <hacknorris> | (tbh - wanted to make similar to avoid hoards of css with content things and more js than needed..) |
| 19:54 | <evilpie> | at least you get tick marks in Firefox and Chrome nowadays |
| 19:54 | <hacknorris> | in firefox i dont get, only chrome |
| 19:54 | <evilpie> | you are using some old version |
| 19:54 | <hacknorris> | nope |
| 19:54 | <hacknorris> | moment |
| 19:57 | <hacknorris> | user agent of firefox : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0 |
| 19:58 | <hacknorris> | (taken quickly from console ;p) |
| 19:58 | <evilpie> | you need at least 109 |
| 19:58 | <hacknorris> | ok, now i have hoards of reinstalls 😕 |
| 19:59 | <hacknorris> | lfs/slackware moment |