| 06:38 | <Domenic> | Domenic: I gave a first shot at the |
| 06:50 | <Noam Rosenthal> | It's looking quite nice. I'm sorry you ran into a preexisting issue, per https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9856#discussion_r1361569089 . I guess it's good to confirm the direction I was leaning for a fix though. Your help implementing that fix would be much appreciated. |
| 06:52 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Domenic: re having a new ActivationInfo with each activation, that would mean that a BFCache restore would replace the whole object: are we ok with that? This is the reason I went with an additional internal struct |
| 06:53 | <Domenic> | Domenic: re having a new ActivationInfo with each activation, that would mean that a BFCache restore would replace the whole object: are we ok with that? This is the reason I went with an additional internal struct |
| 08:00 | <annevk> | Domenic: python3 factory.py --single urlpattern "URL Pattern" should work |
| 08:01 | <annevk> | Domenic: only --all requires db.json to be up-to-date |
| 08:01 | <annevk> | Domenic: you'll have to create a PR manually but for a one-off that seems fine |
| 08:46 | <Domenic> | Ah, nice. I ran out of time for today but will do that tomorrow. |
| 10:39 | <Rakina Zata Amni> | Hello, the BFCache team in Chromium has a couple of spec discussions/PRs that are awaiting response from other vendors for a while, and I've been told that it might be good to ask about them here :) The first is about queueing messages on BroadcastChannel, which I think got agreement from Firefox but pending some thoughts from annevk . Anne, do you think that all your concerns have been addressed there? The second is about NotRestoredReasons: there was a controversial part that smaug and peterv pointed out about randomly exposing cross-origin blocking reasons, which has been removed now. If there's no remaining problem, can we get approval from Firefox folks there? (There is also a question about exposing line numbers and URLs there) Finally this is not under WHATWG but since it's also bfcache related, there's also a discussion about Clear-Site-Data <> BFCache eviction with annevk. It seems like at least the top-level-frame header eviction shouldn't be controversial, is there any problem with specifying that? LMK if there's more context needed for any of those. We can also join the WHATWG triage meeting if needed, but we're all in APAC so we'll need to wait for the APAC friendly one. |
| 10:39 | <smaug> | Rakina Zata Amni: FWIW, I and peterv will discuss about that NotRestoredReasons later today. We'll comment in the spec issue. |
| 10:40 | <Rakina Zata Amni> | Awesome, thanks! |