| 00:35 | <EveryOS> | Coincidentally, I also plan to implement the navigation soon Though it's really dense (the intro paragraph literally calls it "the dragon's maw") so I'm 🌈 procrastinating 🌈 |
| 13:16 | <Domenic> | Off the top of my head on a weekend, I thought there was a step early in navigation/traversal that would abort any current loads in the top-level traversable and its descendants? |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | Domenic: I think so, there was a concept of maturing and a new navigation would abort immature navigations or some such |
| 16:27 | <Alexander Kalenik> | Off the top of my head on a weekend, I thought there was a step early in navigation/traversal that would abort any current loads in the top-level traversable and its descendants? |
| 16:31 | <Alexander Kalenik> | Domenic: I think so, there was a concept of maturing and a new navigation would abort immature navigations or some such |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | Hmm, did that get removed in the navigation refactor? |
| 16:33 | <annevk> | Step 11 of https://html.spec.whatwg.org/review-drafts/2022-07/#navigate has it. So if it's not there now it's a regression. Pretty bad one. |
| 16:36 | <Domenic> | It's still there. Step 17. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#navigate |
| 16:39 | <Alexander Kalenik> | right, changing "ongoing navigation" means canceling any navigation that hasn't been finished. but shouldn't we also do that for all child navigables of a navigable that navigates? |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | I guess descendants might never have been covered. I guess that can happen with bfcache? |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | Oh wait. I think I see now. Yeah hmm, not sure. |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | Recalling stuff from long ago now... I think that ought to be covered by canceling all the fetches for the fetch group, but we never got around to specifying that well. |
| 16:56 | <Domenic> | Step 20.3 should take care of descendants |
| 16:59 | <Noam Rosenthal> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#abort-a-document #2 is a bit lacking in terms of what it means to "cancel any instances of fetch", I'd be happy to fix this as part of fetchLater, didn't it use to call "terminate a fetch group" before? |
| 17:02 | <annevk> | I think there was also disagreement about the point in time that got invoked where Fx might have been more aggressive? Would benefit from tests |
| 17:02 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Fx? |
| 17:02 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Ah Firefox |
| 17:07 | <Alexander Kalenik> | Step 20.3 should take care of descendants |
| 17:08 | <Domenic> | Not sure we have the right thing for traversals though, to be honest. (E.g. if your entrypoint is "traverse the history by a delta".) |
| 17:08 | <Domenic> | Hmm maybe step 8.3? https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#apply-the-history-step |
| 17:09 | <annevk> | Anyone already in Sevilla? I'm flying in from Madrid shortly. |
| 17:20 | <Domenic> | I'm here, and I sat next to Olli on the plane :D |
| 18:05 | <Alexander Kalenik> | Step 20.3 should take care of descendants |
| 18:07 | <Domenic> | Oh what happened there... I think I tried to unify those concepts, and maybe failed? |
| 18:08 | <Domenic> | Please file an issue... eek |