| 00:01 | <lynko> | I think my biggest question is whether the length markers are meaningful; I don't think there's any difference in vowel length between common en-gb and en-us within "what"? |
| 00:09 | <lynko> | You must be right since there's only one vowel sound in <what>. If there could possibly be a meaning to vowel stress in a single-syllable word, it would have to be about its role in the cadence of a larger utterance. |
| 00:15 | <lynko> | In Pink Floyd's "Us and Them" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLhKJuGhK0 David sings "And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?" You can hear the distinctive British [t] throughout the song, but in fact at 7:10 you can hear him sing "what" as /wɑɾ/, which isn't listed at all on Wiktionary! Oh well... There are more dialects in the British Isles than there are grains of sand on the beach. |
| 01:02 | <Domenic> | somewhat related to https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/10483 is there any interest in using function names for abstract operations like in ES as opposed to the current sentence ones (eg https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#convert-to-premultiplied) |
| 01:17 | <Meghan Denny> | in what way, arent they describing algorithms? |
| 01:18 | <Meghan Denny> | https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-create-element is a better example of one |
| 01:18 | <sideshowbarker> | I guess it’s more that they’re naming the algorithms rather than describing the algorithms. |
| 01:19 | <sideshowbarker> | With the current callable prose-description-label style, the prose labels describe the algorithms in natural language. |
| 01:20 | <sideshowbarker> | Replacing the prose-description label with just a name seems like a regression in expressiveness. |
| 01:20 | <sideshowbarker> | At least it seems like a regression in readability. |
| 01:22 | <sideshowbarker> | But I can understand that some would find the prose descriptions the algorithms are labeled with to be more unwieldy than having them labeled with short names. |
| 01:24 | <sideshowbarker> | I guess it’s definitely more idiosyncratic for a spec to have callable prose-description labels for algorithms. I don’t actually know any other specs which do that, in places outside web-platform specs. |
| 01:27 | <sideshowbarker> | But then, as far as that goes, there’s a lot of stuff the HTML spec does differently than most other specs. And I think there was a time when it really was the only spec that did this callable-prose-description-label thing. But since that time, other web-platform specs have adopted the same style. (At least I think HTML was the first to do it, in our world at least) |
| 01:30 | <sideshowbarker> | https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-create-element is a better example of one |
| 01:31 | <Meghan Denny> | dom.CreateElement( document, localName, namespace, prefix?, is?, synchronousCustomElementsFlag? ) |
| 01:33 | <sideshowbarker> | I see — but I mean also, how would the prose around it read. What would be the rest of the wording that precedes the algorithm below is that says what to do with the parameters? |
| 01:36 | <Meghan Denny> | the algorithm itself would remain largely unchanged except for step 4 would be something like
|
| 01:37 | <sideshowbarker> | I see |
| 01:40 | <Meghan Denny> | https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#construct-a-callback-function does this style for interaction with the ES spec |
| 01:40 | <sideshowbarker> | But as far as the first sentence, I guess it would need to be something like the following?
|
| 01:40 | <sideshowbarker> | Or:
|
| 01:42 | <Meghan Denny> | yeah or
|
| 01:43 | <sideshowbarker> | Yeah, I know. I personally don’t like that — and as a reader of the ES spec (in contrast to being and implementor for it), I personally find the ES spec to be relatively much harder to read because of its use of that style. |
| 01:45 | <Domenic> | I had my ES-spec-style fanboy stage. You can still see remnants of it in streams. And I unfortunately infected a lot of people with the usage of [[InternalSlots]]. |
| 01:46 | <sideshowbarker> | If I’m instead implementing something (from the HTML spec), I guess I might find that function style somewhat easier to implement from. But not by much, really. And I wouldn’t find it to be a good tradeoff to make it slightly easier for implementors at the cost of making more-than-slightly harder for non-implementors to read. |
| 01:48 | <sideshowbarker> | And IMHO, the ES spec style really does make it more-than-slightly harder for non-implementors to read. But that said, the ES spec is a runtime language spec, and most runtime-language specs are written that way, and that’s what language-runtime implementors are more used to. But the HTML spec is not a runtime-language spec in that sense. |
| 01:52 | <Meghan Denny> | makes sense, thanks :) |
| 14:30 | <wanderview> | Can someone help me understand the difference between fetchClient and settingsObject in fetch a single module script? Is fetchClient the "inner" context for cases like worker scripts that create a new global and settingsObject is the "outer" context that initiated the load? Just having trouble tracing it. Thanks. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#fetch-a-single-module-script |
| 14:43 | <Noam Rosenthal> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/workers.html#worker-processing-model:fetch-a-module-worker-script-tree |
| 14:44 | <Noam Rosenthal> | so it's the opposite |
| 14:45 | <Noam Rosenthal> | For workers/worklets, fetchClient is the "outer" context because you fetch the worker/worklet in the context of the thing that called it (usually a document), and settingsObjects is the inner thing that runs in the worker/worklet |
| 14:46 | <Noam Rosenthal> | (more or less) |
| 15:37 | <wanderview> | thanks! |
| 15:38 | <Sam Sneddon [:gsnedders]> | Do you mean e.g. the /ɑː/ in /wɑːt/? |
| 15:39 | <Sam Sneddon [:gsnedders]> | In Pink Floyd's "Us and Them" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLhKJuGhK0 David sings "And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?" You can hear the distinctive British [t] throughout the song, but in fact at 7:10 you can hear him sing "what" as /wɑɾ/, which isn't listed at all on Wiktionary! Oh well... There are more dialects in the British Isles than there are grains of sand on the beach. |
| 15:40 | <wanderview> | wow, its like I got to use irc today... 🎉 |