WHATWG on 2024-08-15

01:05	<Domenic>	I admit not reading the spec closely when we implemented in jsdom but I kind of assumed the spec was based on mathematical infinite-precision numbers.
07:14	<annevk>	I assumed that for a long time too, but looking at it today it just references floating-point math?
08:16	<Domenic>	I'm not sure, I think it only references floating-point for the parsing/serialization?
08:17	<Domenic>	The tests are for stepUp() etc. IIRC which says "Let value be the result of adding delta to value."
09:22	<annevk>	Ah, I guess that's fair.
09:22	<annevk>	Still, some additional clarity on this wouldn't hurt. Perhaps once we sort out numbers in Infra.
12:11	<sideshowbarker>	So maybe someone wrote some non-floating-point-compliant WPTs and everyone just decided to copy in a decimal lib? lol Are the relevant tests https://wpt.fyi/results/html/semantics/forms/the-input-element/number.html? or somewhere else?
12:14	<sideshowbarker>	hmm, I guess it’s probably not those, because Ladybird passes most of those
12:17	<sideshowbarker>	Anyway, I believe Ladybird implements the core `<input type=number>` requirements per-spec — that, is Ladybird uses a double parser. And so, if the WPTs don’t match the spec requirements, then Ladybird should be failing those
13:34	<Gasim Gasimzada>	Hello, I have recently been working on trying to implement `console.table` for the LadyBird browser and I have came across the `console` WHATWG repo. Unfortunately, there was no algorithm defined for `console.table`; so, I decided to investigate how Chromium and Firefox implement it and tried to figure out the algorithm. I created a pull request to https://github.com/whatwg/console/pull/237 that tries to describe the algorithm. Please let me know of your comments and concerns about this since this is my first ever contribution to Whatwg. annevk janbrasna Can I add you as reviewers for this PR?
15:15	<annevk>	Gasim Gasimzada: I think Dominic Farolino or one of the other editors is prolly better suited to review, maybe Domenic but I suspect he's very busy; if all that fails I could maybe take a look, but I'd have to ramp up on the whole subject so I'd rather not
15:46	<Dominic Farolino>	Ah, yeah I've been notified about the PR, just haven't had time to look at it yet. Coming back from vacation this week, so still warming up
15:55	<annevk>	Samesies. Been going pretty well thus far, but I'm suspecting it's because a lot of other people are away which makes it easier.
16:14	<Dominic Farolino>	zcorpan: I want to confirm something about https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/html/semantics/embedded-content/the-iframe-element/iframe-loading-lazy-reload-navigation-reload.html#L9-L10. Is this statement true because reloads don't go through the "normal" #navigate path, and it is only the normal #navigate path that clears the lazyload resumption steps? (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/C#beginning-navigation:lazy-load-resumption-steps). Is that the idea?
16:16	<Gasim Gasimzada>	Ah, yeah I've been notified about the PR, just haven't had time to look at it yet. Coming back from vacation this week, so still warming up Thanks! No rush! Just wanted to know who to set in the Checklist for "At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):"
16:21	<annevk>	Gasim Gasimzada: ah, that part you want to lobby implementers for. But I if it's documenting what's already implemented you don't strictly need that.
16:21	<Gasim Gasimzada>	Gasim Gasimzada: ah, that part you want to lobby implementers for. But I if it's documenting what's already implemented you don't strictly need that. Makes sense! Thank you.