| 07:24 | <foolip> | annevk: I need your advice on algorithm invocation style. https://github.com/whatwg/fullscreen/pull/223 uses the style "Request removal from the top layer for element from its node document" and https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9093 uses the style "Request an element to be removed from the top layer given document and element." The first form has the arguments in the wrong order, but the second form is very wordy. What should we converge on? |
| 07:30 | <annevk> | foolip: I left a comment somewhere that I don't understand the need for both element and node document to be arguments |
| 07:32 | <annevk> | foolip: assuming a legit need, you could do something like "Request removal from the top layer given element and element's node document" or element's node document and element |
| 07:32 | <foolip> | annevk: I agree that's weird, and I haven't seen a case in review yet where the document is anything other than the element's node document. |
| 07:33 | <foolip> | annevk: but my question is more about writing the invocation in a style that flows more naturally, like Tab is doing. If the arguments were all right, which style would you want? |
| 07:34 | <annevk> | The style I double quoted above (though perhaps with the argument order reversed, depending)? |
| 07:37 | <foolip> | Oh, I'm a bad reader. |
| 07:41 | <foolip> | So in other words, use the "request removal from the top layer" form, but still "given" before the arguments, not the even more English-like variant. I agree with that. |
| 07:41 | <foolip> | Let me file an issue about the document arguments... |
| 07:49 | <sideshowbarker> | Looking at https://github.com/validator/validator/issues/1592 — it seems that bitbucket.io sites don’t allow HTTP 1.0 client requests, but apparently instead require HTTP 1.1 or greater. Is this a thing these days? I mean, are other servers doing this? (I haven’t noticed many — as far as the HTML checker goes, I know all of them would fail with the checker.) Is there some good reason for a Web server admin to disable HTTP 1.0 support? |
| 07:54 | <foolip> | annevk: I've filed https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8849 |
| 10:39 | <Sam Sneddon [:gsnedders]> | Looking at https://github.com/validator/validator/issues/1592 — it seems that bitbucket.io sites don’t allow HTTP 1.0 client requests, but apparently instead require HTTP 1.1 or greater. Host header, and being able to server multiple sites from a single IP… though most HTTP/1.0 implementations support that too |
| 11:55 | <jub0bs> | freddy: No problem :) |
| 14:57 | <jugglinmike> | jugglinmike: the second bullet point in https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#es-stringifier specifies that |