01:01 | <Domenic> | Turning it off, at least for now, sounds good; thank you! |
07:02 | <annevk> | I'm not convinced Privacy & Security sections are a net positive. They need to be an integral part of feature design. |
07:56 | <freddy> | Not a WHATWG steering commitee member, but I think we all know that privacy/security/a11y is seldomly well-solved when done as an afterthought. So, it would be more important to have this required for all specs during design phase (as anne says, I believe?) and thus enable these checks for all new specs |
07:57 | <freddy> | (Solutionism: Maybe there's could be a tag, like "legacy-no-security-privacy-section" that could be applied to old specs and do the check such that that new specs will get the warning) |
08:04 | <annevk> | No, I'm saying these sections don't help. They often lead to people making normative statements in these sections that really should be part of the processing model. |
08:09 | <Domenic> | I'm not ready to make a blanket statement that the sections don't help, but I will strongly agree that I've seen that antipattern quite often. |
08:11 | <Domenic> | I guess they feel more like explainer sections than spec sections to me. But then we get into the old discussion about how much explanatory/non-normative text is helpful in a spec. |
08:34 | <annevk> | Yeah fair. I just think that if you need these sections to get something that's good security & privacy-wise, you've likely failed. But they can be useful to add some context, e.g., https://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#security-background |
11:59 | <annevk> | freddy: see also the somewhat painful https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/776 and https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/777 which resulted in https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#security-and-privacy. I could see it being helpful, but I can also see it leading to people not critically thinking about it for themselves. |
12:32 | <hsivonen> | Intentional or accidental that JSON modules integration ended up with a normative reference to IETF JSON instead of using the same specification mechanisms as Fetch? |
12:35 | <annevk> | hsivonen: oh wow, that seems bogus. |
12:37 | <annevk> | I wonder if people here have a term for "hash including hash sign" and "search including question mark", as an alternative way of solving https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/779. We could do hasSearch that returns a boolean, but searchWithSyntax (if there's a better name) that returns ?test instead of test might be more convenient. |
12:39 | <annevk> | hsivonen: oh actually, I think it might be a result of where the MIME type is defined |
12:40 | <hsivonen> | I'm trying to figure out if HTML ends up allowing non-UTF-8 encodings for JSON modules... |
12:40 | <annevk> | hsivonen: because for parsing we do end up calling the same %JSON.parse% operation as far as I can tell |
12:40 | <annevk> | hsivonen: we don't, see the logic in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#fetch-a-single-module-script |
12:41 | <annevk> | hsivonen: in particular 13.2 and then 13.9 |
12:42 | <hsivonen> | hsivonen: in particular 13.2 and then 13.9 |
12:42 | <hsivonen> | hsivonen: oh actually, I think it might be a result of where the MIME type is defined |
12:43 | <annevk> | Yeah, there might also be some [JSON] copypasta. Seems reasonable to file an issue to address at one point. |
13:10 | <hsivonen> | Oh, the encoding requirements of this version of IETF JSON are more reasonable than past IETF JSON. |
13:23 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I think at some point I pushed them pretty hard with the XMLHttpRequest "precedent" and that we were not going to change our ways |
13:34 | <easrng> | It's funny that RFC8259 requires both encoding as utf-8 and escapes as utf-16 |
13:37 | <annevk> | Yeah, JavaScript was developed in the 16-bits are enough for all characters in the world days. And I guess since JSON is frozen-in-time and happened before the 21-bit escapes were added to JavaScript everyone will have to learn about that legacy anew. |
17:07 | <Vuk Stefanovic> | Hi All! For example I am trying to implement a replace text functionality, where I replace a string of text coming from a ReadableStream with text coming from a second Readable stream, so far I couldn't find any example for this using whatwg streams. This is pseudo code, so for simplicity I'm pretending like the text to replace won't span chunk boundaries
One thing I saw thanks to good old For example
I'm not sure if doing |
17:34 | <Colin Alworth> | Can’t help with the spec side of things, but await Promise.resolve() is only going to be a microtask, so as I understand it there won’t be time for other tasks (like IO, browser events) to take place |
18:11 | <Vuk Stefanovic> | Can’t help with the spec side of things, but await Promise.resolve() is only going to be a microtask, so as I understand it there won’t be time for other tasks (like IO, browser events) to take place |
18:12 | <Vuk Stefanovic> | so starving the macrotask queue is not really a concern |