| 13:06 | <smaug> | keithamus: you're planning to do another survey on the attribute names? |
| 13:07 | <keithamus> | I’m hesitant because I don’t want it to come across as “the surveys will continue until we get the result we want” |
| 13:08 | <smaug> | ah. Well, I wasn't thinking that. I'm just curious to know the combination of attributes, and how people feel about them |
| 13:10 | <keithamus> | Yes I agree and I’m also curious. I think perhaps we could if there was a more concrete set of viable candidates? It seems a little pointless to propose an option which one party would object to implementing. |
| 13:16 | <smaug> | If web devs clearly said that clickactiontarget is great (and others aren't), I wouldn't object implementing that 🙂 (but right now I don't know the answer). Perhaps the survey would need to have a bit more concrete examples on how to use the attributes together. I know, it becomes long and probably would get fewer responses - but also whoever does say something, might have thought through the options more. |
| 13:20 | <keithamus> | One challenge is that each option in the poll has a 25 character limit which makes it hard to express the full markup. |
| 13:20 | <keithamus> | And polls cannot have attached images, meaning it has to be represented in the post or the options |
| 13:38 | <Luke Warlow> | Could we link to a github poll? That way we can provide more context on the github issue. Explain the usecase a bit better (which should avoid people wanting stuff like type="open" not realising that's just an example usage), and get less restrictions on character limits? |
| 16:02 | <smaug> | (good that the current command event in Gecko uses XULCommandEvent interface - just in case CommandEvent will be added to the web platform. Some of the attributes of XULCommandEvent might be useful also for invoke|clickaction|command event) |
| 16:54 | <keithamus> | There were a few discussions about something like sourceEvent. |
| 19:50 | <Gabriel Brito> | Hello, folks! On 05/02 I joined the WHATNOT meeting (minutes here) to discuss our ["iframe media playback pausing" proposal] (https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/10208). The discussion was very helpful, but there were no HTML spec editors present. Some present there to agreed with the proposal's goal and concept, however maybe the proposed API's shape (permission policy) is not the best. One of the suggestions is to have a new paused property added HTMLIFrameElement instead of implementing a new permissions policy, for example. What do you think about moving in this direction? Can anyone of the spec editors give us some feedback? BTW, is this the best place to make this type of question? Thanks! :) |
| 20:33 | <Luke Warlow> | Domenic: am I missing something or is step 10 of https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#inner-navigate-event-firing-algorithm wrong? Specifically it checks for transient activation when I think it should be checking for history action user activation instead? Otherwise the navigation API never checks for it, only consumes it which seems erroneous? |