| 01:43 | <Domenic> | In WHATNOT today sideshowbarker shared https://sideshowbarker.github.io/w3c-faq/#how-can-i-make-a-living-standard-from-my-spec . Good to have that documented. |
| 01:45 | <Domenic> | Overall the FAQ is pretty nifty... it resonates with me more than a lot of other W3C process stuff I've read |
| 01:50 | <sideshowbarker> | Thanks yeah — that’s my hope for it at least. I actually put it together because the WebAssembly WG chairs had asked me some questions I didn’t actually know the answers to, but rightly should have. So I went back and read through the W3C Process to try to understand enough that I could answers their questions. And then even for just myself, to be able to understand it, I kind of had to write it all down. And then I figured, well, this ought to be useful to other people too — so I reframed it all in the way it is now. |
| 01:51 | <sideshowbarker> | So, feedback about stuff in it that remains unclear is very much welcome. I actually just now pushed https://github.com/sideshowbarker/w3c-faq/commit/34493e5605 based on some more questions today from the WebAssembly WG chairs. |
| 01:53 | <sideshowbarker> | All that said, I 100% agree that the whole process is incredibly baroque — IMHO unnecessarily so — but hope this doc can help a lot to mitigate some of that for everybody who’s confused and baffled by it all, and just wants to be able to publish their specs. |
| 02:20 | <Domenic> | https://sideshowbarker.github.io/w3c-faq/#editors-draft is great too :D |
| 02:44 | <sideshowbarker> | https://sideshowbarker.github.io/w3c-faq/#editors-draft is great too :D ⺡̟֯ ˄⎠̧ Yeah there’s a reason this is published in my personal space rather than anywhere official. Definitely not written for insiders |
| 02:45 | <sideshowbarker> | Titling it “An objectively accurate and correct guide to the W3C” probably would have been taking it a bit far |
| 02:49 | <sideshowbarker> | But anyway, “An Outsider’s Guide” really does reflect the intent. Not intentionally trying to be obnoxious and piss anyone off (though I know some will be anyway) — instead just trying to accurately state things in terms that will make things as clear as possible to people who are just hoping to get something done through the W3C (the vast majority of whom aren’t insiders) |
| 12:30 | <smaug> | keithamus: do you understand how ESC should work with close watchers? |
| 12:31 | <smaug> | The spec talks first about picking up keydown and checking its canceled flag, but then later an example talks about keyup |
| 12:31 | <smaug> | (and there can be multiple keydowns and only one keyup) |
| 12:32 | smaug | files some spec issues |
| 12:57 | <Luke Warlow> | I remember the spec was wrong somewhere originally. It's possible that it was wrong somewhere else |
| 13:06 | <Luke Warlow> | The spec talks first about picking up keydown and checking its canceled flag, but then later an example talks about keyup |
| 13:28 | <smaug> | Luke Warlow: right, but there is the example below talking about keydown/up sequence |
| 13:28 | <smaug> | and those events happen often in different tasks |
| 13:28 | <smaug> | and the example talks about keyup being cancelled |
| 13:29 | <Luke Warlow> | Ah yeah I suspect that's wrong. It said keyup before soemwhere else and it was changed so this might be the same. See https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10043 |