WHATWG
2023-06-02
plaintext logs
prev next
source on github
00:12
<Domenic>
or even String type vs String
In ES, <dfn>'s CSS is italics.
06:45
<annevk>
Domenic: fair. I think I still can't use the typedefs though because that would not obviously allow for resizable buffers
06:47
<annevk>
Domenic: I guess I should just introduce some terms for the "values"
06:47
<Domenic>
Or just say "an instance of one of the buffer source types"
06:47
<Domenic>
Or define new typedefs if they're useful
06:48
<Domenic>
Actually I'm not sure what's wrong with the typedefs...
06:48
<Domenic>

To create one of the buffer view types from a byte sequence bytes in a realm realm:

Here "buffer view types" links to a dfn that says it's DataView + Uint8Array + ...

06:48
<Domenic>
But we already have a typedef for that: ArrayBufferView
06:49
<annevk>
I'm not saying my current wording works with my new understanding of types, but https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#AllowResizable suggests it creates a new IDL type
06:50
<Domenic>
Yeah, I guess the question is whether the "create" algorithm is meant to allow creating resizable ABs etc.
06:50
<Domenic>
But presumably some of them are
06:51
<Domenic>
E.g. "byte length"
06:51
<Domenic>
So for "byte length" could you use AllowSharedBufferSource?
06:51
<annevk>
That still doesn't include AllowResizable
06:51
<Domenic>
Got it
06:51
<Domenic>
So, preexisting issue
06:52
<Domenic>
I guess you have to say "annotated type whose inner type is..." and then you have to use "instance" because you're in type-land
06:52
<annevk>
Yeah I suppose, WebKit doesn't seem to have AllowResizable
06:53
<annevk>
Domenic: that doesn't help with for though
06:53
<Domenic>
I think having for not be rigorous is OK
06:53
<annevk>
oh
06:54
<Domenic>
Making people type [=[AllowResizable] Uint8Array/byte length=] instead of [=Uint8Array/byte length=] seems unnecessary, even if they're technically operating on a value whose type is [AllowResizable] Uint8Array
06:55
<annevk>
We could define InclusiveAllowSharedBufferSource I suppose, hmm
06:55
<annevk>
Well I would expect something like "buffer objects/byte length" maybe
06:55
<annevk>
But I could live with not fixing it, certainly less to fix downstream
06:56
<Domenic>
It's true we probably do need a typedef that includes [AllowResizable]
06:56
<Domenic>
Is anyone using [AllowResizable]? Hmm.
06:56
<Domenic>
WebDex says no https://dontcallmedom.github.io/webdex/a.html#AllowResizable%40%40%40%40extended-attribute
06:56
<Domenic>
But yeah it seems likely anyone who did use it would quickly want a typedef
06:57
<Domenic>
Either AllowResizableBufferSource or AllowSharedAndResizableBufferSource
06:57
<Domenic>
(shared and resizable = growable, I guess??)
07:07
<annevk>
Domenic: yeah maybe, I don't really know what kind of operations you need with resizable, perhaps we should wait until someone actually attempts to do it
07:07
<Domenic>
Yeah fair enough
07:07
<annevk>
Domenic: I guess I'll restore the existing for attributes and such and file a follow-up issue
11:29
<sideshowbarker>

zcorpan: (and on the off chance there might be actually be any others here that care about the error-checking behavior of the vnu/mozilla HTML parser) Good news about my investigation of the fubarred behavior for error checking for ampersands is: From testing now, I can say:

12:14
<Zomatree>
Are there emcascript type IDL definitions or in another machine readable format? im working on some bindings to another language and would rather not have to manually write it all out
12:26
<annevk>
Zomatree: TypeScript has those, maybe?
12:29
<Zomatree>
parsing ts types would be a nightmare with how complex the type system is
12:39
<annevk>
sideshowbarker: if you're still around, does https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9372 look good to you? I'll merge
12:51
<sideshowbarker>
sideshowbarker: if you're still around, does https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9372 look good to you? I'll merge
Looking now
12:54
<nicolo-ribaudo>
It's not exactly what you are looking for, but with https://github.com/es-meta/esmeta you can parse the ecmascript spec and extract type definitions from it
13:00
<sideshowbarker>
sideshowbarker: if you're still around, does https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9372 look good to you? I'll merge

Quick answer for now for here is: I think I am unliking to willingly implement this in the HTML Checker, because I think that on balance this restriction will end up wasting more time of HTML developer-authors than it helps others. Use cases for summary are very different from use cases for button.

For one thing, a summary often acts essentially as a title/heading, as far as its informational purposes go, rather than just its function. I understand and recognize the very-real accessibility problems with allowing it, and I am in no way dismissing those as being ignorable and unimportant. But in this particular very special case, I do not judge the accessibility problems to be sufficient to merit the restriction being implemented in the HTML checker.

13:02
<sideshowbarker>
Incidentally, all that said, I would have sworn that the spec previously already this restriction (and I had been already intentionally not implementing it), and I so I am a bit surprised to discover that the spec has actually not had this restriction, and this PR is needed to add it.
13:02
<sideshowbarker>
I need to make time to go back and figure out why I had thought this restriction was already in the spec.
13:03
<annevk>
Alright, if you could put your concerns in the issue or PR that would be good. If it's not going to be enforced there's no real reason to make the change.
13:03
<sideshowbarker>
Well I may really be in the wrong side of this
13:03
<annevk>
Or at least it warrants some further discussion I think
13:04
<sideshowbarker>
for sure
13:06
<sideshowbarker>
and for now, I will put the comments into the PR — and then find some time to look back through my stuff and try to see what had confused previously about this already being in the spec. I guess that’s moot/irrelevant anyway as far as this PR goes — but it’s just I feel unsettled about not being able to remember yet why I had this apparent misapprehension so far, about this being in the spec already
13:06
<sideshowbarker>
thanks for the heads-up about the PR
13:07
<sideshowbarker>
I had actually seen notifications about that PR rolling by, but been lazy about not actually going to take a look and read the issue description
14:28
<annevk>
sideshowbarker: I just realized this would also outlaw WebKit's PR bot comments
14:32
<sideshowbarker>
sideshowbarker: I just realized this would also outlaw WebKit's PR bot comments
There you go. I think there are many other existing uses that it would outlaw — all over the place. I think if we look, we could find plenty of them — because it’s actually a logical normal natural reasonable use case to anybody
14:33
<sideshowbarker>
I am recalling some of this, and what led me before to already having come to the conclusion that I would not implement it
14:33
<annevk>
Yeah, this no longer seems like a good fix
14:34
<annevk>
I hope you did not provide pushback before and that was not conveyed to us this time around...
14:35
<annevk>
Anyway, no harm done (and we could have always reverted had it been merged, although that would be somewhat bad)
14:36
<sideshowbarker>
Yeah — and I know when I say this that it’s a standard cop-out we have been accused of using since forever in discussions with the accessibility advocates — but it really seems like what needs to happen here is for the AT to be refined to provide the right UX for this
14:36
<sideshowbarker>
I mean, it’s in the wild already being used very commonly for years
14:37
<sideshowbarker>
And we know that many (or most) developers are not going to change their existing stuff just because the HTML checker starts barking at them
15:47
<annevk>
sideshowbarker: oops I was wrong, the WebKit PR bot doesn't put interactive content in summary, just in details
15:47
<annevk>
sideshowbarker: for summary it does seem less likely, but there are probably existing cases
16:09
<annevk>
Wait, why does the selector *|test serialize as test?
16:24
<annevk>
I guess that's just how it works, unless you use @namespace it's all global
16:24
<annevk>
So there's no need for *|* if you don't have @namespace either, something to keep in mind for the "global style sheet" I suppose
17:37
<Eric Portis (he/him)>
zcorpan: Trying to wrap my head around concrete object size ignoring natural dimensions. Is this correct? https://gist.github.com/eeeps/3b6c4b90f7275526534d5928a978fbaa
17:38
<Yagiz Nizipli>
We just released Ada's website, as well as Rust, Python and Go clients. Appreciate any feedback from WHATWG. http://ada-url.com
17:40
<Eric Portis (he/him)>
(thinking through a new wrinkle, adding an example with height: auto...) nevermind, I forgot how height:auto + width and height work, ignore me... still curious to check my understanding of the two examples in the gist though
17:56
<Eric Portis (he/him)>
Also, my reading of https://whatpr.org/html/8008/images.html#parsing-a-sizes-attribute is that once you've specified loading=lazy, an img will behave equivalently with or without sizes=auto. Aka lazy-loaded images get auto-sizes by default. Is that right?
21:59
<sideshowbarker>
sideshowbarker: for summary it does seem less likely, but there are probably existing cases
One concrete thing I can do that with give us some actual data ー though aggregated data, as opposed to a list of sites ー is: I can add a use counter to the HTML checker, and then take a look at the number from that, after the counter has been in there for a few days
22:07
<sideshowbarker>
That is, the counter will give us a percentage of sites which are using interactive content or tabindex inside `summary`
22:09
<sideshowbarker>
...and in parallel to me adding that use counter, zcorpan or somebody else here who's set up to run HTTPArchive queries can run one for this
22:12
<sideshowbarker>
But separate still from both of those, it would be greatly helpful for somebody to try to create a list of existing widely-visited sites which are using it (interactive content or tabindex inside `summary`)
22:14
<sideshowbarker>
Maybe Scott Ohara or Steve Faulkner already know of some big sites which are